469 

S9 

09 


F  0 


OF  CALIFORNIA 
DAVIS 


A      SPEECH 

BY 


HON.  CHARLES  SUMNER 


United   States  Senator    from    Massachusetts,   and   Chairman  of   the   Senate   Committee 
on    Foreign   Relations. 


OUR  FOREIGN  RELATIONS: 


PRESENT    PERILS    FROM    ENGLAND    AXD    FRANCE  ;    THE   ^ATURE    AND 
CONDITIONS   OF  INTERVENTION  BY   MEDIATION;    AND   ALSO  BY 
RECOGNITION;   THE  IMPOSSIBILITY  OF  ANY  RECOGNITION 
OF  A  NEW  POWER   WITH   SLAVERY   AS   A  CORNER 
STONE  ;    AND   THE    WRONGFUL   CONCESSION" 
OF  OCEAN  BELLIGERENCY. 


S  PE  E  CH 


HON.  CHARLES  STJMNER, 


BEFORE   THE 


CITIZENS  OP  NEW  YORK,  AT  THE 'COOPER  INSTITUTE, 


SEPT.    10,    1863. 


•Jam  non  ad  culmina  rerum 


Injustos  crevisse  queror.    Tolluntur  in  altum 
Ut  lapsu  graviore  ruant. 

— CLAUDIAN. 


NEW   YORK: 

YOUNG   MEN'S    REPUBLICAN   UNION". 

1  8G3. 


LIBRARY 

ffNTVPRSITY  OF  CALIFORNW 
DAVIS 


"  To  this  condition  the  Constitution  of  this  Confederacy  reduces  the  whole  African  race;  and 
while  declaring  these  to  be  its  principles,  their  founders  claim  the  privilege  of  being  admitted 
into  the  society  of  the  nations  of  the  earth ! — principles  worthy  only  of  being  conceived  and 
promulgated  by  the  inmates  of  the  infernal  regions,  and  a  fit  constitution  for  a  confederacy 
in  Pandemonium!  Now,  as  soon  as  the  nature  of  this  constitution  is  truly  explained  and 
understood,  is  it  possible  that  the  nations  of  the  eartli  can  admit  such  a  Confederacy  into  their 
society  ?  Can  any  nation,  calling  itself  civilised,  associate,  with  any  sense  of  self-respect,  with 
a  nation  avoiding  and  practicing  such  principles?  Will  not  every  civilized  nation,  when  the 
•nature  of  this  Confederacy  is  understood,  come  to  the  side  of  the  United  States,  and  refuse 
all  association  with  them,  as,  in  truth,  they  are  hostes  kumani  generis?  For  the  African 
is  as  much  entitled  to  be  protected  in  the  rights  of  humanity  as  any  other  portion  of  the 
human  race.  As  to  Great  Britain,  her  course  is,  in  the  nature  of  things,  already  Jlxed  and 
immutable.  She  must,  sooner  or  later,  join  the  United  States  in  this  war,  or  be  disgraced 
throughout  all  future  time  ;  for  the  principle  of  that  civilization  which  this  Confederacy  repu 
diates  was  by  her — to  her  great  glory,  and  with  unparalleled  sacrifices — introduced  into  the 
code  of  civilization;  and  she  will  prove  herself  recreant  if  she  fails  to  maintain  it." — Speech 
of  Hon.  JOSIAH  QUIJJCY,  to  the  Union  Club  of  Boston. 


Wright  &  Potter,  Printers,  Ko.  4  Spring  Lane,  Boston. 


INTRODUCTORY. 


The  following  -Speech  -was  delivered  at  the  invitation  of  the  New  York  Young 
Men's  Republican  Union,  at  Cooper  Institute,  on  the  10th  of  September,  1863. 
The  announcement  that  Mr.  SUMXER  had  consented  to  address  the  citizens  of 
New  York  on  a  subject  so  momentous  attracted  an  audience  numbering  not  less 
than  three  thousand  persons,  among  whom  were  most  of  the  acknowledged  repre 
sentatives  of  the  intelligence,  wealth  and  influence  of  the  Metropolis.  Long 
before  the  hour  appointed  for  the  delivery  of  the  speech,  the  entrance  doors 
were  besieged  by  an  impatient  and  anxious  crowd,  who,  as  soon  as  the  gates 
were  opened,  filled  the  seats,  aisles,  lobbies  and  platform  of  the  vast  hall,  leaving 
at  least  an  equal  number  to  return  home  unable  to  gain  "an  entrance  to  the 
building. 

Of  the  following  named  gentlemen,  who  were  invited  to  occupy  seats  upon 
the  platform,  a  majority  were  present,  while  in  the  auditorium  were  seated 
hundreds  of  equally  prominent  citizens,  who  preferred  to  retain  seats  near  the 
ladies  whom  they  had  escorted  to  -the  meeting : — 


FRANCIS  LIEBER,  LL.  D., 

G  K< » KG K  BAN  CROFT, 

MAJOH-GKNEKAL  Dix, 
HORACE  GUEELEY, 
GEORGE  GHISWOLD, 
JOHN  E.  WILLIAMS, 
W.  W.  DB  FOKKST, 
CORNELIUS  VANDERBILT, 
ABKAM  WAKEMAN, 
REV.  DR.  TYNG, 
CYRUS  W.  FIKLD, 
ALEX.  T.  STEWART, 
HORACE  WEBSTER,  LL.  D., 
JOSEPH  LAWRENCE, 
JOHN  A.  STEVENS, 
PELATIAH  PERIT, 
JAMES  A.  HAMILTON, 
H.  B.  CLAFLIX, 
T.  L.  THORN  ELL, 

CoL.  WlLLlAM'BoRDEN, 

WILLIAM  GOODELL, 
KEV.  DR.  THOMPSON, 
REV.  DR.  GILLETTE, 
WILLIAM  CULLEN  BRYANT, 
MAJOR-GENERAL  FREMONT, 
A.  A.  Low, 
JOHN  JAY, 
HENRY  GRINNELL, 
JAMES  GALLATIN, 
CEPHAS  BKAINERD, 
WILLIAM  B.  ASTOR, 


"WlLLTAM  II.  A  SPIN  WALL,, 
OLIVER  JOHNSON, 
W.  M.  EVARTS, 
WILLIAM  CURTIS  No  YES 
REV.  DR.  HITCHCOCK, 
SHEPHERD  KNAPP, 
WILLIAM  H.  WEBB, 
JAMES  W.  GERARD, 
AN  SON  LIVINGSTON, 
FRANK  W.  BALLARD, 
ISAAC  H.  BAILEY, 
GEORGE  B.  LINCOLN, 
GEN.  HARVEY  BRONVN, 
REV.  DR.  SHEDD, 
hEV.  DR.  DURBIN, 
PETER  COOPER, 
MAJOR-GEN.  DOUBLEDAY, 
CHARLES  II.  MARSHALL, 
MARSHALL  O.  ROBERTS, 
JUDGE  BRADFORD, 
CHARLES  II.  RUSSELL, 

E.  DELAKIELD  SMITH, 
HAMILTON  FISH, 
ROBERT  B.  MINTURN, 
REV.  DR.  CHEEVER, 

F.  B.  CUTTING, 
CHARLES  KING,  LL.  D., 
REV.  DR.  FERRIS, 
Ex-Go VERNOR  KING, 
GEORGE  FOLSOM, 
SAMUEL  B.  RUGGLES, 


S.  B.  CHITTENDEN, 
CHARLES  T.  KODGERS, 
MARK  HOYT, 
LEWIS  TAPPAN, 
REV.  DR.  STORRS, 
REV.  DR.  ADAMS, 
REV.  DR.  VINTON, 
DANIEL  DRENV, 
FRANCIS  HALL, 
GEO.  WILLIAM  CURTIS, 
JUDGE  EDMONDS, 
REV.  DR.  ASA  D.  SMITH, 
TRUMAN  SMITH, 
WILLIAM  A.  HALL, 
PROSPER  M.  WETMORE, 
B.  F.  MANIERRE, 
GEORGE  P.  PUTNAM, 
E.  C.  JOHNSON, 
REV.  DR.  OSGOOD, 
ELLIOTT  C.  COVVDIN, 
REV.  T.  RALSTON  SMITH, 
J.  S.  SCHULTZ, 
M.  ARMSTRONG,  JR., 
D.  A.  HAWKINS, 
EDGAR  KETCHUM, 
JOSEPH  HOXIE, 
REV.  DR.  BELLOWS, 
GEN.  S.  C.  POMEROY, 
JAMES  McKAYE, 
GEORGE  F.  BUTMAN, 
DAVID  DUDLEY  FIELD. 


The  President  of  the  United  States  and  the  members  of  the  Cabinet  were  also 
invited  to  be  present. 


At  least  one  thousand  ladies  were  in  the  audience,  among  whom  Mrs.  LINCOLN 
was  an  attractive  and  conspicuous  personage.  The  wives  and  daughters  of  many 
of  New  York's  wealthiest  and  worthiest  citizens,  by  their  presence  and  enthusiasm 
evinced  the  deep  interest  they  felt  in  the  occasion,  the  speaker,  and  the  theme 
discussed. 

DAVID  DUDLEY  FIELD,  Esq.,  who  had.  been  selected  by  the  Committee  as 
Chairman  of  the  meeting,  introduced  Mr.  SUMNER  to  the  audience  in  the 
following  words : — 

REMARKS  OF  MR.  FIELD. 

LADIES  AND  GENTLEMEN  : — At  no  former  period  in  the  history  of  the  coun 
try,  has  the  condition  of  its  foreign  relations  been  so  important  and  so  critical  as 
it  is  at  this  moment.  In  what  agony  of  mortal  struggle  this  nation  has  passed 
the  last  two  years,  we  all  know.  A  rebellion  of  unparalleled  extent,  of  inde 
scribable  enormity,  without  any  justifiable  cause,  without  even  a  decent  pretext, 
stimulated  by  the  bad  passions  which  a  barbarous  institution  had  originated,  and 
encouraged  by  expected  and  promised  aid  from  false  men  among  ourselves, 
has  filled  the  land  with  desolation  and  mourning.  During  this  struggle  it  has 
been  our  misfortune  to  encounter  the  evil  disposition  of  the  two  nations  of 
Western  Europe,  with  which  we  are  most  closely  associated  by  ties  of  blood, 
common  history,  and  mutual  commerce.  Perhaps  I  ought  to  have  said,  the  evil 
disposition  of  the  Governments  rather  than  of  the  Nations,  for  in  Ffam  e  the 
people  have  no  voice,  and  we  know  only  the  imperial  will  and  policy,  while  in 
England  the  masses  have  no  powers,  the  House  of  Commons  being  elected  by 
a  fraction  of  the  people,  and  the  aristocratic  classes  being  against  us  from  dislike 
to  the  freedom  of  our  institutions,  and  the  mercantile  classes  from  the  most  sordid 
motives  of  private  gain.  To  what  extent  this  evil  disposition  has  been  carried, 
what  causes  have  stimulated  it,  in  what  acts  it  has  manifested  itself,  and  what 
consequences  may  be  expected  to  follow  from  it  in  future,  will  be  explained  by 
the  distinguished  orator  who  is  to  address  you  this  evening.  His  position,  as 
Chairman  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  lias  given  him  an 
acquaintance  with  the  subject,  equal,  if  not  superior,  to  that  of  any  other  person 
in  the  country.  He  needs  no  introduction  from  me.  His  name  is  an  introduc 
tion  and  a  passport  in  any  free  community  between  the  Atlantic  and  the  Pacific 
Seas  ;  therefore,  without  sayingfcnore,  I  will  give  way  for  CHARLES  SUMNER,  of 
Massachusetts. 

Amid  the  most  marked  demonstrations  of  satisfaction,  expressed  frequently 
by  long-continued  applause  and  hearty  cheers,  Mr.  SUMNER  proceeded  in  the 
delivery  of  his  discourse.  The  meeting  adjourned  about  an  hour  before 
midnight. 

It  may  be  proper  to  add,  as  an  evidence  of  the  importance  attached  to  Mr. 
SUMNER'S  treatment  of  the  subject,  that  three  New  York  newspapers,  and  two 
in  Boston,  printed  the  entire  speech  on  the  day  following  its  delivery. 

Copies  of  the  speech  will  be  mailed  to  those  who  may  request  them.  Address 
"Cor.  Sec'y  of  Young  Men's  Republican  Union,  Box  1219  P.  O.  New  York 
City." 


SPEECH. 


FELLOW-CITIZENS, — From  the  beginning  of  the  war  in  which  we 
are  now  engaged,  the  public  interest  has  alternated  anxiously 
between  the  current  of  events  at  home  and  the  more  distant 
current  abroad.  Foreign  Relations  have  been  hardly  less  absorb 
ing  than  Domestic  Relations.  At  times  the  latter  have  seemed 
to  wait  upon  the  former,  and  a  packet  from  Europe  has  been  like 
a  messenger  from  the  seat  of  war.  Rumors  of  Foreign  Interven 
tion  are  constant,  now  in  the  form  of  Mediation,  and  now  in  the 
form  of  Recognition  ;  and  more  than  once  the  country  has  been 
summoned  to  confront  the  idea  of  England,  and  of  France  too, 
in  open  combination  with  Rebel  Slave-mongers  battling,  in  the 
name  of  Slavery,  to  build  an  infamous  Power  on  the  destruction 
of  this  Republic. 

It  may  be  well  for  us  to  turn  aside  from  battle  and  siege  here 
at  home — from  the  blazing  lines  of  Gettysburg,  Vicksburg  and 
Charleston — to  glance  fur  a  moment  at  the  perils  from  abroad  ;  of 
course  I  mean  from  England  and  France,  for  these  are  the  only 
Foreign  Powers  that  thus  far  have  been  moved  to  intermeddle  on 
the  side  of  Slavery.  The  subject  to  which  I  now  invite  attention 
may  not  have  the  attraction  of  waving  standards  or  victorious 
marches, but, more  than  any  conflict  of  arms,  it  concerns  the  Civil 
ization  of  the  age.  If  Foreign  Powers  can  justly  interfere  against 
fiuman  Freedom,  this  Republic  will  not  be  the  only  sufferer. 

There  is  always  a  natural  order  in  unfolding  a  subject,  and  I 
shall  try  to  pursue  it  on  this  occasion,  under  the  following  heads  ; 

First — The  perils  to  our  country  from  Foreign  Powers,  especially 
as  foreshadowed  in  the  unexpected  and  persistent  conduct  of 
England  and  France  since  the  outbreak  of  the  war. 

Secondly — The  nature  of  Foreign  Intervention  by  Mediation, 
with  the  principles  applicable  thereto,  as  illustrated  by  historic 
instances — showing  especially  how  England,  by  her  conspicuous, 
wide-spread  and  most  determined  Intervention  to  promote  the 
extinction  of  African  Slavery,  is  irrevocably  committed  against 
any  act  or  policy  that  can,  encourage  this  criminal  pretension. 

Thirdly — The  nature  of  Foreign  Intervention  by  Recognition, 
with  the  principles  applicable  thereto,  as  Illustrated  by  historic 


instances — showing  that  by  the  practice  of  nations,  and  especially 
by  the  declared  sentiments  of  British  Statesmen,  there  can  be  no 
Foreign  Recognition  of  an  insurgent  Power  ivhere  the  contest  for 
Independence  is  still  pending. 

Fourthly — The  moral  impossibility  of  Foreign  Recognition,  even 
if  the  pretended  Power  be  de  facto  Independent,  where  it  is  com 
posed  of  Rebel  Slave-mongers  seeking  to  found  a  new  Power  with 
Slavery  for  its  declared  "  corner-stone."  Pardon  the  truthful 
plainness  of  the  terms  which  I  employ.  I  am  to  speak  not 
merely  of  Slave-holders ;  but  of  people  to  whom  Slavery  is  a 
passion  and  a  business — therefore  Slave-mongers  ;  now  in  Rebel 
lion  for  the  sake  of  Slavery — therefore  Rebel  Slave-mongers. 

Fifthly — The  absurdity  and  wrong  of  conceding  Ocean  Bellig 
erency  to  a  pretended  Power,  which,  in  the  first  place,  is  without 
a  Prize  Court — so  that  it  cannot  be  an  Ocean  Belligerent  in  fact — 
and  which,  in  the  second  place,  even  if  Ocean  Belligerent  in  fact, 
is  of  such  an  odious  character,  that  its  Recognition  is  a  moral 
impossibility. 

From  this  review,  touching  upon  the  present  and  the  past ; 
leaning  upon  history  and  upon  law ;  enlightened  always  by  prin 
ciples  which  are  an  unerring  guide,  our  conclusion  will  be  easy. 

p.] 

PERILS  FROM  FOREIGN  POWERS. 

The  perils  to  our  country,  as  foreshadowed  in  the  action  of 
Foreign  Powers  since  the  outbreak  of  the  war,  first  invite  our 
attention. 

There  is  something  in  the  tendencies  of  nations,  which 
must  not  be  neglected.  Like  individuals,  nations  influence 
each  other ;  like  the  heavenly  bodies,  they  may  be  disturbed  by 
each  other  in  their  appointed  orbits.  This  is  apparent  even  in 
peace  ;  but  it  becomes  more  apparent  in  the  convulsions  of  war, 
sometimes  from  the  withdrawal  of  customary  forces  and  some 
times  from  their  increased  momentum.  It  is  the  nature  of  war 
to  enlarge  as  it  continues.  Beginning  between  two  nations,  it 
gradually  widens  its  circle,  sucking  other  nations  into  its  fiery 
maelstrom.  Such  is  human  history.  Nor  is  it  different,  if  the 
war  be  for  Independence.  Foreign  Powers  may  for  a  while  keep 
out  of  the  conflict ;  but  the  examples  of  history  show  how  difficult 
this  has  been 

The  Seven  United  Provinces  of  Holland,  under  that  illustrious 
character,  William  of  Orange,  the  predecessor  and  exemplar  of 
our  Washington,  rose  against  the  dominion  of  Spain,  upheld  by 
the  bigotry  of  Philip  II.,  and  the  barbarity  of  his  representative, 
Alva  ;  but  the  conflict,  though  at  first  limited  to  the  two  parties, 
was  not  slow  to  engage  Queen  Elizabeth,  who  lent  to  this  war  of 
Independence  the  name  of  her  favorite  Leicester  and  the  undying 


heroism  of  Sidney,  while  Spain  retorted  by  the  Armada.  The 
United  Provinces  of  Holland,  in  their  struggle  for  Independence, 
were  the  prototype  of  the  United  States  of  America,  which  I  need 
not  remind  you,  drew  into  their  contest  the  arms  of  France, 
Spain,  and  Holland.  In  the  rising  of  the  Spanish  Colonies 
which  followed,  there  was  less  interposition  of  other  nations, 
'doubtless  from  the  distant  and  outlying  position  of  these  Colonies, 
although  they  were  not  beyond  the  ambitious  reach  of  the  Holy 
Alliance,  whose  purposes  with  regard  to  them  were  so  far  thwarted 
by  Mr.  Canning,  backed  by  the  declaration  of  Mr.  Munroe — known 
as  the  Munroe  doctrine — that  the  British  Statesman  felt  authorized 
to  boast  that  he  had  called  a  New  World  into  existence  to  redress 
the  balance  of  the  Old.  Then  came  the  struggle  for  Greek  Inde 
pendence,  which,  after  a  conflict  of  several  years,  darkened  by 
massacre,  but  relieved  by  an  exalted  self-sacrifice,  shining  with 
names  like  Byron  and  Bozzar.is,  that  cannot  die,  at  length  chal 
lenged  the  powerful  interposition  of  England,  France  and  Russia. 
The  Independence  of  Greece  was  hardly  acknowledged,  when 
Belgium]  renouncing  the  rule  of  the  Netherlands,  claimed  hers 
also,  and  here  again  the  Great  Powers  of  Europe  were  drawn  into 
the  contest.  Then  came  .the  effort  of  Hungary,  inspired  by 
Kossuth,  which,  when  about  to  prevail,  aroused  the  armies  of 
Russia.  There  was  also  the  contemporaneous  effort  of  the  Roman 
Republic,  under  Mazzini,  which  when  about  to  prevail,  aroused 
the  bayonets  of  France.  And  lastly  we  have  only  recently 
witnessed  the  resurrection  of  Italy,  inspired  by  Garibaldi,  and 
directed  by  Cavour ;  but  it  was  not  accomplished  until  Louis 
Napoleon,  with  his  well-trained  legions,  carried  the  imperial 
eagles  into  the  battle. 

Such  are  famous  instances,  which  are  now  so  many  warnings. 
Ponder  them  and  you  will  see  the  tendency,  the  temptation,  the 
irresistible  fascination,  or  the  commanding  exigency  under  which, 
in  times  past,  Foreign  Nations  have  been  led  to  take  part  in  con 
flicts  for  Independence.  I  do  not  dwell  now  on  the  character  of 
these  various  interventions,  although  they  have  been  mostly  in  the 
interest  of  Human  Freedom.  It  is  only  as  examples  to  put  us 
on  our  guard  that  I  now  adduce  them.  The  footprints  all  seem 
to  lead  one  way. 

But  even  our  war  is  not  without  its  warnings.  If  thus  far  in 
its  progress  other  nations  have  not  intervened,  they  have  not 
succeeded  in  keeping  entirely  aloof.  The  foreign  trumpet  has 
not  sounded  yet ;  but  more  than  once  the  cry  has  come  that  we 
should  soon  hear  it,  while  incidents  have  too  often  occurred, 
exhibiting  an  abnormal  watchfulness  of  our  affairs  and  an  uncon 
trollable  passion  or  purpose  to  intermeddle  in  them,  with  signs  of 
unfriendly  feeling.  Of  course,  this  is  applicable  especially,  if  not 
exclusively,  to  England  and  France. 


8 

Perils  from  England. 

(1.)  There  is  one  act  of  the  British  Cabinet  which  stands  fore 
most  as  an  omen  of  peril — foremost  in  time — foremost  also  in  the 
magnitude  of  its  consequences.  Though  plausible  in  form,  it  is 
none  the  less  injurious  or  unjustifiable.  Of  course,  I  refer  to  that 
inconsiderate  Proclamation  in  the  name  of  the  Queen,  as  early  as 
May,  1861,  which,  after  raising  Rebel  Slave-mongers  tonne  quality 
with  the  National  Government  in  Belligerent  Rights,  solemnly 
declares  "neutrality"  between  the  two  equal  parties; — as  if  the 
declaration  of  equality  was  not  an  insult  to  the  National  Govern 
ment,  and  the  declaration  of  neutrality  was  not  a  moral  absurdity, 
offensive  to  reason  and  all  those  precedents  which  make  the 
glory  of  the  British  name.  Even  if  the  Proclamation  could  be 
otherwise  than  improper  at  any  time  in  such  a  Rebellion,  it  was 
worse  tjian  a  blunder  at  that  early  date.  The  apparent  relations 
between  the  two  Powers  were  more  than  friendly.  Only  a 
few  months  before,  the  youthful  heir  to  the  British  throne 
had  been  welcomed  every  where  throughout  the  United  States 
— except  in  Richmond — as  in  the  land  of  kinsmen.  And  yet 
— immediately  after  the  tidings  of  the  rebel  assault  on  Fort 
Sumtcr — before  the  National  Government  had  begun  to  put 
forth  its  strength — and  even  without  waiting  for  the  arrival  of 
our  newly-appointed  Minister,  who  was  known  to  be  at  Liver 
pool  on  his  way  to  London,  the  Proclamation  was  suddenly 
launched.  I  doubt  if  any  well-informed  person,  who  has  read 
Mr.  Dallas's  despatch  of  2d  May,  1861,  recounting  a  conversation 
with  the  British  Minister,  will  undertake  to  vindicate  it  in  point 
of  time.  Clearly  the  alacrity  of  this  concession  was  unhappy,  for 
it  bore  an  air  of  defiance  or  at  least  of  heartlessness  towards  an 
ally  of  kindred  blood  engaged  in  the  maintenance  of  its  tradi 
tional  power  against  an  infamous  pretension.  But  it  was  more 
unhappy  still,  that  the  good  genius  of  England  did  not  save  this 
historic  nation,  linked  with  so  many  triumphs  of  freedom,  from 
a  fatal  step,  which,  under  the  guise  of  "  neutrality,"  was  a 
betrayal  of  civilization  itself. 

It  is  difficult  to  exaggerate  the  consequences  of  this  precipitate, 
unfriendly  and  immoral  concession,  which  has  been  and  still  is 
an  overflowing  fountain  of  mischief  and  bloodshed — hac  fonte 
derivata  clades ; — -first,  in  what  it  vouchsafes  to  Rebel  Slave- 
mongers  on  sea  and  in  British  ports,  and  secondly,  in  the  impedi 
ments  which  it  takes  from  British  subjects  ready  to  make  money 
out  of  Slavery  ; — all  of  which  has  been  declared  by  undoubted 
British  authority.  Lord  Chelmsford — of  professional  renown  as 
Sir  Frederick  Thesiger — now  an  Ex-Chancellor — used  these  words 
recently  in  the  House  of  Lords  ;  "  If  the  Southern  Confederacy 
had  not  been  recognized  as  a  belligerent  Power,  he  agreed  with 
his  noble  and  learned  friend  [Lord  Brougham]  that,  under  these 
circumstances,  if  any  Englishman  were  to  fit  out  a  privateer  for 


the  purpose  of  assisting  the  Southern  States  against  the  Northern 
States,  he  would  be  guilty  of  piracy" — But  all  this  was  changed 
by  the  Queen's  Proclamation.  For  the  Rebel  Slave-monger  there 
is  the  recognition  of  his  flag  ;  for  the  British  subject  there  is  the 
opportunity  of  trade.  For  the  Rebel  Slave-monger  there  is  fellow 
ship  and  equality;  for  the  British  subject  there  is  a  new  customer, 
to  whom  he  may  lawfully  sell  Armstrong  guns  and  other  warlike 
munitions  of  choicest  British  workmanship,  and,  as  Lord  Palmers- 
ton  tells  us,  even  ships  of  war  too,  to  be  used  in  behalf  of  Slavery. 
What  was  unlawful  is  suddenly  made  lawful,  while  the  ban  is 
taken  from  an  odious  felony.  It  seems  almost  superfluous 
to  add,  that  such  a  concession,  thus  potent  in  its  reach,  must 
have  been  a  direct  encouragement  and  overture  to  the  Rebel 
lion.  Slavery  itself  was  exalted  when  barbarous  pretenders — 
battling  to  found  a  new  Power  in  its  hateful  name — without  so 
much  as  a  single  port  on  the  ocean  where  a  prize  could  be 
carried  for  condemnation — were  yet,  in  the  face  of  this  essential 
deficiency,  swiftly  acknowledged  as  ocean  belligerents,  while, 
as  a  consequence,  their  pirate  ships,  cruising  for  plunder  in 
behalf  of  Slavery,  were  acknowledged  as  National  ships,  entitled 
to  equal  privileges  with  the  National  ships  of  the  United  States. 
This  simple  statement  is  enough.  It  is  vain  to  say,  that  such  a 
concession  was  a  a  necessity."  There  may  have  been  a  strong 
temptation  to  it,  constituting,  perhaps,  an  imagined  necessity,  as 
with  many  persons  there  is  a  strong  temptation  to  Slavery  itself. 
But  such  a  concession  to  Rebel  Slave-mongers,  fighting  for  Slavery, 
can  be  vindicated  only  as  Slavery  is  vindicated.  As  well  undertake 
to  declare  "neutrality"  between  Right  and  Wrong — between 
Good  and  Evil — with  a  concession  to  the  latter  of  Belligerent 
Rights  ;  and  then  set  up  the  apology  of  "  necessity." 

(2.)  It  was  natural  that  an  act  so  essentially  unfriendly  in 
character  and  also  in  the  alacrity  with  which  it  was  done,  should 
create  throughout  England  an  unfriendly  sentiment  towards  us, 
easily  stimulated  to  a  menace  of  war.  And  this  menace  was  not 
wanting  soon  afterwards,  when  the  two  rebel  emissaries  on  board 
the  Trent  were  seized  by  a  patriotic,  brave  commander,  whose  high 
est  fault  was,  that,  in  the  absence  of  instructions  from  his  own  Gov 
ernment,  he  followed  too  closely  British  precedents.  This  accident 
— for  such  it  was  and  nothing  else — was  misrepresented,  and,  with 
an  utterly  indefensible  exaggeration,  was  changed  by  the  British 
nation,  backed  by  the  British  Government,  into  a  casus  belli,  as  if 
such  an  unauthorized  incident,  which  obviously  involved  no  ques 
tion  of  self-defence,  could  justify  war  between  two  civilized  Nations. 
And  yet,  in  the  face  of  a  positive  declaration  from  the  United  States, 
that  it  was  an  accident,  the  British  Government  made  preparations 
to  take  part  with  rebel  slave-mongers,  and  it  fitly  began  such  ignoble 
preparations  by  keeping  back  from  the  British  people,  the  official 
despatch  of  30th  November,  1861,  where  our  Government,  after 


10 

announcing  that  Capt.  "Wilkes  had  acted  "  without  any  instruc 
tions,"  expressed  a  trust  that  "  the  British  Government  would  con 
sider  the  subject  in  a  friendly  temper,"  and  promised  "  the  best 
disposition  on  our  part."  It  is  painful  to  recall  these  things.  But 
they  now  belong  to  history,  and  we  cannot  forget  the  lesson  they 
teach. 

(8.)  But  this  tendency  to  espouse  the  side  of  Slavery,  appears 
in.  small  things,  as  well  as  great,  becoming  more  marked  in 
proportion  to  the  inconsistency  involved.  Thus,  for  instance, 
where  two  British  subjects  "suspected"  of  participation  in  the 
Rebellion  were  detained  in  a  military  prison,  without  the  benefit 
of  habeas  corpus,  the  British  Minister  at  Washington  was  directed 
by  Her  Majesty's  Government  to  complain  of  their  detention  as 
an  infraction  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  of  which  this 
intermeddling  Power  assumed  for  the  time  to  be  the  "  expounder  ;" 
and  the  case  was  accordingly  presented  on  this  -ground.  But 
the  British  cabinet,  in  its  instinctive  aptness  to  mix  in  our 
war,  if  only  by  diplomatic  notes,  seemed  to  have  forgotten  the 
British  Constitution,  under  which,  in  1848,  with  the  consent  of 
the  leaders  of  all  parties, — Brougham  and  Derby,  Peele  and 
D'Israeli, — the  habeas  corpus  was  suspended  in  Ireland  and  the 
Government  was  authorized  to  apprehend  and  detain  "  such 
persons  as  they  shall  suspect."  The  bill  sanctioning  this  exercise 
of  power  went  through  all  its  stages  in  the  House  of  Commons  in 
one  day,  and  on  the  next  day  it  went  through  all  its  stages  in  the 
House  of  Lords,  passing  to  be  a  law  without  a  dissenting  vote. 
It  will  hardly  be  believed  that  Lord  Russell,  who  now  complains 
of  our  detention  of  "  suspected  "  persons,  as  an  infraction  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  was  the  Minister  who  intro 
duced  this  Bill,  and  that,  on  that  occasion  he  used  these  words : 
u  I  believe  in  my  conscience  that  this  measure  is  calculated  to 
prevent  insurrection,  to  preserve  internal  peace,  to  preserve  the 
unity  of  this  empire  and  to  save  the  throne  of  these  realms  and 
the  free  institutions  of  this  country." 

(4.)  The  complaint  about  the  habeas  corpus  was  hardly 
answered  when  another  was  solemnly  presented,  on  account  of  the 
effort  to  complete  the  blockade  of  Charleston,  by  sinking  at 
its  mouth  ships  laden  with  stone,  usually  known  as  the  "  stone 
blockade."  In  common  times  her  Majesty's  government  would 
have  shrunk  from  any  intermeddling  here.  It  could  not  have 
forgotten  that  history,  early  and  late,  and  especially  English 
history,  abounds  in  similar  incidents  ;  that  as  long  ago  as  1456, 
at  the  siege  of  Calais  by  the  Duke  of  Burgundy,  and  also  in  1628 
at  the  memorable  siege  of  Rochelle  by  Cardinal  Richelieu,  ships 
laden  with  stone  were  sunk  in  the  harbor  ;  that  during  the  war 
of  the  Revolution  in  1778  six  vessels  were  sunk  by  the  British 
commander  in  the  Savannah  River,  not  far  from  this  very  Charles 
ton,  as  a  protection  against  the  approach  of  the  French  and 


11 

American  naval  forces ;  that  in  1804,  under  the  direction  of  the 
British  Admiralty,  an  attempt  was  made  to  choke  the  entrance  into 
the  harbor  of  Boulogne  by  sinking  stone  vessels,  and  that  in  1809 
the  same  blockade  was  recommended  to  the  Admiralty  by  no  less 
a  person  than  Lord  Dundonald,  with  regard  to  another  port,  saying, 
"  Ships  filled  with  stones  will  ruin  forever  the  anchorage  of  Aix, 
and  some  old  vessels  of  the  line  well  loaded  would  be  excellent 
for  the  purpose."  But  this  complaint  < by  the  British  Cabinet 
becomes  doubly  strange,  when  it  is  considered  that  one  of  the 
most  conspicuous  treaties  of  modern  history  contained  solemn 
exactions  by  England  from  France,  that  tbe  harbor  of  Dunkirk, 
whose  prosperity  was  regarded  with  jealousy,  should  be  permanently 
"  filled  up,"  so  that  it  could  no  longer  furnish  its  accustomed  hospi 
talities  to  commerce.  This  was  the  Treaty  of  Utrecht,  in  1713. 
But  by  the  Triple  Alliance,  only  four  years  later,  France  was  con 
strained  to  stipulate  again  that  nothing  should  be  omitted"  which 
Great  Britain  could  think  necessary  for  the  entire  destruction  of  the 
harbor,"  and  the  latter  Power  was  authorized  to  send  commission 
ers  as  "  ocular  witnesses  of  the  execution  of  the  Treaty."  These 
humiliating  provisions  were  renewed  in  successive  treaties  down 
to  the  peace  of  Versailles  in  1783,  when  the  immunity  of  that 
harbor  was  recognized  with  American  Independence.  But  Great 
Britain,  when  compelled  to  open  Durkirk,  still  united  with  the 
Dutch  in  closing  the  Scheldt,  or  as  a  British  writer  expresses  it,  she 
"  became  bound  to  assist  in,  obstructing'  this  navigation"  (Ency- 
clopcedia  Britannica.  Vol.  x.  p.  77,  article,  France.)  One  of 
the  two  reasons  put  forth  by  Great  Britain  for  breaking  peace  with 
France  in  1792,  and  entering  upon  that  world-convulsing  war, 
was  that  this  revolutionary  Power  had  declared  it  would  open  the 
Scheldt.  And  yet  it  is  Great  Britain,  thus  persistent  in  closing 
ports  and  rivers,  that  now  interferes  to  warn  us  against  a  "  stone 
blockade." 

(5.)  The  same  propensity  and  the  same  inconsistency  will  be 
found  in  another  instance,  where  an  eminent  peer,  once  Foreign 
Secretary,  did  not  hesitate,  from  his  place  in  Parliament,  to 
charge  the  United  States  with  making  medicines  and  surgical 
instruments  contraband,  "  contrary  to  all  the  common  laws  of 
war,  contrary  to  all  precedent,  not  excluding'  the  most  ignorant 
and  barbarous  ages  "  Thus  exclaims  the  noble  lord.  Now  I 
have  nothing  to  say  of  the  propriety  of  making  these  things  con 
traband.  My  simple  object  is  to  exhibit  the  spirit  against  which 
we  are  to  guard.  It  would  be  difficult  to  believe  that  such  a  dis 
play  could  be  made  in  the  face  of  the  historic  fact,  exposed  in 
the  satire  of  Peter  Plytnley's  Letters,  that,  Parliament,  in  1808, 
by  large  majorities,  prohibited  the  exportation  of  Peruvian  Bark 
into  any  territory  occupied  by  France,  and  that  this  measure  was 
introduced  by  no  less  a  person  than  Mr.  Percival,  and  commended 
by  him  on  the  ground  that  "  the  severest  pressure  was  already 


12 

felt  on  the  continent  from  the  want  of  this  article,  and  that  it 
was  of  great  importance  to  the  armies  of  the  enemy."  (Han 
sard's  Parliamentary  Debates.)  Such  is  authentic  British  prece 
dent,  in  an  age  neither  "  ignorant "  nor  u  barbarous,"  which  is  now 
ostentatiously  forgotten. 

(6.)  This  same  recklessness,  which  is  of  such  evil  omen,  breaks 
forth  a  grain  in  a  despatch  of  the  Foreign  Secretary,  win-re  he 
undertakes  to  communicate  to  Lord  Lyons  the  judgment  of  the 
Britibh  Cabinet  on  the  President's  Proclamation  of  Emancipa 
tion.  Here  at.  least,  you  will  say,  there  can  be  no  misunder 
standing,  and  no  criticism  ;  but  you  are  mistaken.  {Such  an  act, 
having  such  an  object,  and  being  of  such  unparalelled  importance, 
would,  under  any  ordinary  circumstances,  when  great  passions 
found  no  vent,  have  been  treated  by  the  Minister  of  a  Foreign 
Power  with  supreme  caution,  if  not  with  sympathy;  but,  under 
the  terrible  influence  of  the  hour,  Lord  Russell,  not  content  with 
condemning  the  Proclamation,  misrepresents  it  in  the  iuo>t  bare 
faced  manner.  Gathering  his  condemnation  into  one  phrase,  he 
says,  that  it  "  makes  Slavery  at  once  legal  and  illegal,"  whereas 
it  is  obvious,  on  the  face  of  the  Proclamation,  to  the  most  careless 
observer,  that,  whatever  may  be  its  faults,  it  is  not  obnoxious  to 
this  criticism,  for  it  makes  Slavery  legal  nowhere,  while  it  makes 
it  illegal  in  an  immense  territory.  An  official  letter,  so  incom 
prehensible  in  motive,  from  a  statesman  usually  liberal  if  not 
cautious,  must  be  regarded  as  another- illustration  of  that  irri 
tating  tendency,  which  will  be  checked  only  when  it  is  fully 
comprehended. 

(7.)  The  activity  of  our  navy  is  only  another  occasion  for 
criticism  in  a  similar  spirit.  Nothing  can  be  done  any  where  to 
please  our  self-constituted  monitor.  Our  naval  officers  in  the 
West  Indies,  acting  under  instructions  modelled  on  the  judgments 
of  the  British  Admiralty,  are  reprehended  by  Lord  Russell  in  a 
formal  despatch.  The  judges  in  our  Prize  Court  are  indecently 
belittled  by  this  same  Minister  from  his  place  in  Parliament,  when 
it  is  notorious  that  there  are  several  who  will  compare  favorably 
with  any  British  Admiralty  Judge  since  Lord  Stowell,  not  even 
excepting  that  noble  and  upright  magistrate,  Dr.  Lushington. 
And  this  same  Minister  has  undertaken  to  throw  the  British 
shield  over  a  newly-invented  contraband  trade  with  the  rebel 
slave-mongers  via  Metamoras,  claiming  that  it  was  "  a  lawful 
branch  of  commerce,"  and  u  a  perfectly  legitimate  trade."  The 
Dolphin  and  Peterhoff  were  two  ships  elaborately  prepared  in 
London,  for  this  illicit  commerce,  and  they  have  been  duly  con 
demned  as  such  ;  but  their  seizure  by  our  cruisers  was  made  the 
occasion  of  official  protest  and  complaint,  with  the  insinuation  of 
"vexatious  capture  and  arbitrary  interference,"  followed  by  the 
menace,  that,  under  such  circumstances,  "  it  is  obvious  Great 
Britain  must  interfere  to  protect  her  flag." 


13 

(8.)  This  persistent,  inexorable  criticism,  even  at  the  expense 
of  all  consistency  or  of  all  memory,  has  also  broken  forth  in 
forms  incompatible  with  that  very  "  neutrality,"  which  was  so 
early  declared.  It  was  bad  enough  to  declare  neutrality,  when 
the  question  was  between  a  friendly  Power  and  an  insulting  Bar 
barism  ;  but  it  was  worse  after  the  declaration  to  depart  from  it, 
if  in  words  only.  The  Court  of  Rome  at  a  period  when  it  pow 
erfully  influenced  the  usage  of  Nations,  instructed  its  cardinal 
Leg'ite,  on  an  important  occasion,  as  a  solemn  duty  first  and  above 
all  things,  to  cultivate  "indifference"  between  the  parties,  and  in 
this  regard  he  was  to  be  so  exact,  that,  not  only  should  no  partiality 
be  seen  in  his  conduct,  but  it  should  not  be  remarked  even 
"  in  the  words  of  his  domestics"  (Wicquefort,  Parfait  Ambas- 
sadeur,  Liv.  ii.  p.  1-41.)  If  in  that  early  day,  before  steam  and 
telegraph,  or  even  the  newspaper,  neutrality  was  disturbed  by 
"  words,"  how  much  more  so  now,  when  every  word  is  multiplied 
indefinitely,  and  wafted  we  know  not  where — to  begin,  wherever 
it  falls,  a  subtle,  wide-spread  and  irrepressible  influence.  But 
this  injunction  is  in  plain  harmony  with  the  refined  rule  of  Count 
Bernstoif,  who,  in  his  admirable  despatch  on  this  subject,  at  the 
time  of  the  Armed  Neutrality,  says  sententiously,  u  Neutrality 
does^  not  exist  when  it  is  not  perfect"  It  must  be  clear  and 
above  suspicion.  Like  the  reputation  of  a  woman,  it  is  lost  when 
you  begin  to  talk  about  it.  Unhappily  there  is  too  much  occasion 
to  talk  about  the  "  neutrality"  of  England.*  I  say  nothing  of  a 
Parliamentary  utterance  that  the  National  cause  was  "  detested 
by  a  large  majority  of  the  House  of  Commons,"  or  of  other 
most  unneutral  speeches.  I  confine  myself  to  official  declara 
tions.  Here  the  case  is  plain.  Several  of  the  British  Cabinet, 
including  the  Foreign  Secretary  and  the  Chancellor  of  the 
Exchequer,  two  great  masters  of  "  words,"  have  allowed  them 
selves  in  public  speeches,  to  characterize  offensively  our  pres 
ent  effort  to  put  down  Rebel  Slave-mongers,  as  "  a  contest 
for  empire  on  one  side  and  for  independence  on  the  other." 
Here  were  "  words,"  which,  under  a  specious  form,  were  under 
stood  to  give  encouragement  to  Rebel  Slave-mongers.  But  they 
were  more  specious  than  true — revealing  nothing  but  the  side 
espoused  by  the'  orators.  Clearly  on  our  side  it  is  a  contest 
for  National  life,  involving  the  liberty  of  a  race.  Clearly  on  the 
other  side  it  is  a  contest  for  Slavery,  in  order  to  secure  for 
this  hateful  crime  new  recognition  and  power.  Our  Empire  is 
simply  to  crush  Rebel  Slave-mongers.  Their  Independence  is 
simply  the  unrestrained  power  to  whip  women  and  sell  children. 
Even  if  at  the  beginning,  the  National  Government  made  no 
declaration  on  the  subject,  yet  the  real  character  of  the  war  was 
none  the  less  apparent  in  the  repeated  declarations  of  the  other 
side,  who  did  not  hesitate  to  assert  their  purpose  to  build  a  new 
Power  on  Slavery — as  in  the  Italian  campaign  of  Louis  Napoleon 


u 

against  Austria,  the  object  was  necessarily  apparent,  even  before 
the  Emperor  tardily  at  Milan  put  forth  his  life-giving  Proclama 
tion  that  Italy  should  be  free  from  the  Alps  to  the  Adriatic,  by 
which  the  war  became,  in  its  declared  purpose,  as  well  as  in 
reality,  a  war  of  Liberation.  That  such  a  Rebellion  should  be 
elevated  by  the  unneutral  "  words  "  of  a  Foreign  Cabinet,  into 
a  respectability  of  which  it  is  obviously  unworthy,  is  only  another 
sign  which  we  must  watch. 

(9.)  But  these  same  orators  of  the  British  Cabinet,  not  con 
tent  with  giving  us  a  bad  name,  have  allowed  themselves  to  pro 
nounce  against  us  on  the  whole  case.  They  declared  that  the 
National  Government  cannot  succeed  in  crushing  Rebel  Slave- 
mongers  and  that  dismemberment  is  inevitable.  "  Jefferson 
Davis"  says  one  of  them  " has  created  a  nation."  Thus  do  these 
representatives  of  declared  "neutrality"  degrade  us  and  exalt 
Slavery.  But  it  is  apparent  that  their  proclamation,  though 
made  in  Parliament  and  repeated  at  public  meetings,  was  founded 
less  on  any  special  information  from  the  seat  of  war,  disclosing 
its  secret,  than  on  political  theory,  if  not  prejudice.  It  is  true 
that  our  eloquent  teacher,  Edmund  Burke,  in  his  famous  letter  to 
the  Sheriffs  of  Bristol,  argued  most  persuasively  that  Great 
Britain  could  not  succeed  in  reclaiming  the  colonies,  which  had 
declared  themselves  independent.  His  reasoning  rather  "than 
his  wisdom,  seems  to  have  entered  into  and  possessed  the  British 
statesmen  of  our  day,  who  do  not  take  the  trouble  to  see  that  the 
two  cases  are  so  entirely  unlike  that  the  example  of  the  one  is  not 
applicable  to  the  other;  that  the  colonies  were  battling  to  found 
mnew  Power  on  the  corner-stone  of  "liberty,  equality  and  hap 
piness  to  all  men,"  while  our  Slave-mongers  are  battling  to  found 
a  new  Power  on  the  corner-stone  of  "  Slavery."  The  difference 
is  such  as  to  become  a  contrast — so  that  whatever  was  once  gen 
erously  said  in  favor  of  American  Independence  now  tells  with 
unmistakable  force  against  this  new-fangled  pretension. 

No  British  statesman  saw  the  past  more  clearly  than  Lord 
Russell  when,  long  ago,  in  striking  phrase,  he  said  that  England, 
in  her  war  against  our  fathers,  "  had  engaged  for  the  suppression 
of  Liberty;"  (Hansard's  Parliammlanj  Debates,  2d  series,  Vol. 
viii.  p.  1036,  April  16,  1823,)  but  this  is  precisely  what  Rebel 
Slave-mongers  are  now  doing.  Men  change ;  but  principles  are 
the  same  now  as  then.  Therefore,  do  I  say,  that  every  sympathy 
formerly  bestowed  upon  our  fathers  now  belongs  to  us  their 
children,  striving  to  uphold  their  work  against  bad  men,  who 
would  not  only  break  it  in  pieces  but  put  in  its  stead  a  new 
piratical  Power,  whose  declared  object  is  "  the  suppression  of 
Liberty."  And  yet  British  ministers,  mounting  the  prophetic 
tripod,  presume  most  oracularly  to  foretell  the  doom  of  this 
Republic.  Their  prophecies  do  not  disturb  my  confidence.  I 
do  not  forget  how  often  false  prophets  have  appeared^-includ- 


15 

ing  the  author  of  the  Oceana,  who  published  a  demonstration 
of  the  impossibility  of  monarchy  in  England  only  six  months 
before  Charles  II.  entered  London  amidst  salvoes  of  cannon, 
and  the  hurrahs  of  the  people.  Nor  do  I  stop  to  consider  how 
far  such  prophecies  uttered  in  public  places  by  British  Minis 
ters  are  consistent  with  that  British  "neutrality"  which  is  so 
constantly  boasted.  Opinions  are  sometimes  allies  more  potent 
than  subsidies,  especially  in  an  age  like  the  present.  Prophecies 
are  opinions  proclaimed  and  projected  into  the  future,  and  yet 
these  are  given  freely  to  Rebel  Have-mongers.  There  is  matter 
for  reflection  in  this  instance,  but  I  adduce  It  now  only  as 
another  illustration  of  the  times.  Nothing  can  be  more  clear 
than  that  whosoever  assumes  to  play  the  prophet  becomes  pledged 
in  character  and  pretension  to  sustain  his  prophecy.  The  learned 
Jerome  Cardan,  professor  and  doctor,  and  also  dabbler  in  astrol 
ogy,  of  great  fame  in  the  middle  ages,  undertook  to  predict  the 
day  of  his  death,  and  he  maintained  his  character  as  a  successful 
prophet  by  taking  his  own  life  at  the  appointed  time.  If  British 
Ministers,  who  have  played  the  prophet,  escape  the  ordinay  influ 
ences  of  this  craft,  it  will  be  from  that  happy  nature,  which  has 
suspended  for  them  human  infirmity  and  human  prejudice.  But 
it  becomes  us  to  note  well  the  increased  difficulties  and  dangers 
to  which  on  this  account  the  National  cause  is  exposed. 

(10.)  But  it  is  not  in  "  words"  only, — of  speeches,  despatches 
or  declarations, — that  our  danger  lies.  I  am  sorry  to  add  that 
there  are  acts  also  with  which  the  British  Government  is  too  closely 
associated.  I  do  not  refer  to  the  unlimited  supply  of  "  muni 
tions  of  war,"  so  that  our  army  at  Charleston,  like  our  army  at 
Vicksburg,  is  compelled  to  encounter  Armstrong  guns  and  Blake- 
ley  guns,  with  all  proper  ammunition,  from  England;  for  the 
right  of  British  subjects  to  sell  these  articles  to  Rebel  Slave-mon 
gers  was  fixed  when  the  latter,  by  sudden  metamorphosis  were 
changed 'from  lawless  vagrants  of  the  ocean  to  lawful  Belligerents. 
Nor  do  I  refer  to  the  swarms  of  swift  steamers,  "a  pitchy  cloud 
warping  on  the  Eastern  wind,"  always  under  the  British  fl.ig,  with 
contributions  to  Rebel  Slave-mongers  ;  for  these  too,  enjoy  a  kin 
dred  immunity.  Of  course,  no  Royal  Proclamation  can  change 
wrong  into  right  or  make  such  business  otherwise  than  immoral; 
but  the  Proclamation  may  take  from  it  the  character  of  felony. 

But  even  the  Royal  Proclamation  gives  no  sanction  to  the  prep 
aration  in  England  of  a  naval  expedition  against  the  commerce  of 
the  United  States.  It  leaves  the  Parliamentary  Statute,  as  well 
as  the  general  Law  of  Nations,  in  full  efficacy  to  restrain  and 
punish  such  an  offence.  And  yet  in  the  face  of  this  obvious  prohi 
bition,  standing  forth  in  the  text  of  the  law,  and  founded  in  reason 
<;  before  human  statute  purged  the  common  weal,"  also  exempli 
fied  by  the  National  Government,  which,  from  the  time  of  Wash 
ington,  has  always  guarded  its  ports  against  such  outrage,  powerful 


16 

ships  have  been  launched,  equipped,  fitted  out  and  maimed  in 
England,  with  arms  supplied  at  sea  from  another  English  vessel, 
and  then,  assuming  that  by  this  insulting  hocus  pocus  all  English 
liability  was  avoided,  they  have  proceeded  at  once  to  rob  and 
destroy  the  commerce  of  the  United  {States.  England  has  been 
their  naval  base  from  which  were  derived  the  original  forces  and 
supplies  which  enable  them  to  sail  the  sea.  Several  such  ships 
are  now  depredating  on  the  ocean,  like  Captain  Kidd,  under  pre 
tended  commissions — each  in  itself  a  naval  expedition.  As  Eng 
land  is  not  at  war  with  the  United  States,  these  ships  can  be 
nothing  else  than  pirates  ;  and  their  conduct  is  that  of  pirates. 
Unable  to  provide  a  Court  for  the  trial  of  prizes,  they  revive 
for  every  captured  ship  the  barbarous  Ordeal  of  Fire.  Like 
pirates, -they  burn  all  that  they  cannot  rob.  Flying  from  sea  to 
sea,  they  turn  the  ocean  into  a  furnace  and  melting-pot  of  American 
commerce.  Of  these  incendiaries  the  most  famous  is  the  Alabama, 
with  a  picked  crew  of  British  sailors,  with  "trained  gunners  out 
of  her  Majesty's  naval  reserve,"  and  with  every  thing  else  from 
keel  to  top-mast  British  !  which,  after  more  than  a  year  of  unlawful 
havoc,  is  still  burning  the  property  of  our  citizens,  without  once 
entering  a  Rebel  Slave-monger  port,  but  always  keeping  the 
umbilical  connection  with  England,  out  of  whose  womb  she  sprung, 
and  never  losing  the  original  nationality  stamped  upon  her  by 
origin,  so  that  at  this  day  she  is  a  British  pirate  ship — precisely 
as  a  native-born  Englishman,  robbing  on  the  high  seas,  and  never 
naturalized  abroad,  is  a  British  pirate  subject. 

It  is  bad  enough  that  all  this  should  proceed  from  England. 
It  is  hard  to  bear.  Why  is  it  not  stopped  at  once  ?  One  cruiser 
might  perhaps  elude  a  watchful  Government.  But  it  is  difficult 
to  &ee  how  this  can  occur  once — twice— three  times ;  and  the  cry 
is  still  they  sail.  Two  powerful  rams  are  now  announced,  like 
stars  at  a  theatre.  Will  they  too  be  allowed  to  perform  ?  I  wish 
there  were  not  too  much  reason  to  believe  that  all  these  porform- 
ances  are  sustained  by  a  prevailing  British  sympathy.  A  French 
man,  who  was  accidentally  a  prisoner  on  board  the  Alabama  at 
the  destruction  of  two  American  ships,  describes  a  British  packet 
in  sight  whose  crowded  passengers  made  the  sea  resound  with 
cheers  as  they  witnessed  the  captured  ships  handed  over  to  the 
flames.  The  words  of  Lucretius  were  verified ;  Suave  etiam 
belli  certamina  magna  tiieri.  But  these  same  cheers  were  echoed 
in  Parliament,  as  the  builder  of  the  piratical  craft  gloried  in  his 
deed.  The  verse  which  filled  the  ancient  theatre  with  glad 
applause,  declared  a  sympathy  with  Humanity ;  but  English 
applause  is  now  given  to  Slavery  and  its  defenders ;  "  I  am  an 
Englishman,  and  nothing  of  Slavery  is  foreign  to  me."  Accordingly 
Slavery  is  helped  by  English  arms,  English  gold,  English  ships, 
English  speeches,  English  cheers.  And  yet  for  the  honor  of 
England,  let  it  be  known,  that  there  are  Englishmen,  who  have 


17 

stood  firm  and  unshaken  amidet  this  painful  recreancy.  Their 
names  cannot  be  forgotten.  And  still  more  for  the  honor  of 
England,  let  it  be  spoken  that  the  working  classes,  who  were  called 
to  suffer  the  most,  have  bravely  borne  their  calamity,  without 
joining  with  the  enemies  of  the  Republic.  Their  cheers  have 
been  for  Freedom  and  not  for  Slavery. 

But  the  cheers  of  the  House  of  Commons  seem  to  prevail  in 
her  Majesty's  Government.  Municipal  Law  is  violated — while 
International  Law,  in  its'  most  solemn  obligation  to  do  unto  others 
as  we  would  have  them  do  unto  us — is  treated  as  if  it  did  not 
exist.  Eminent  British  functionaries  in  Court  and  Parliament, 
vindicate  the  naval  expeditions,  which,  in  the  name  of  Slavery, 
have  been  unleashed  against  a  friendly  Power.  Taking  advan 
tage  of  an  admitted  principle,  that  "munitions  of  war"  may 
be  supplied,  the  Lord  Chief  Baron  of  the  Exchequer  tells  us, 
that  u  ships  of  war"  may  be  supplied  also.  Lord  Palmerston 
echoes  the  Lord  Chief  Baron.  Each  vouches  American  author 
ity.  But  they  are  mistaken.  The  steel  which  they  strive  to 
"  impell "  cannot  be  feathered  from  our  sides.  Since  the 
earliest  stage  of  its  existence  the  National  Government  has 
asserted  a  distinction  between  the  two  cases ;  and  so  has  the 
Supreme  Court,  although  there  are  words  of  Story  which  have 
been  latterly  quoted  to  the  contrary.  But  the  authority  of  the 
Supreme  Court  is  positive  on  both  the  points  into  which  the 
British  apology  is  divided.  The  first  of  these  is  that,  even  if  a 
"  ship  of  war"  cannot  be  furnished,  the  offence  is  not  complete 
until  the  armament  is  put  aboard,  so  that  where  the  ship,  though 
fitted  out  and  equipped  in  a  British  port,  awaits  her  armament 
at  sea,  she  is  not  liable  to  arrest.  Such  an  apology  is  an  insult 
to  the  understanding  and  to  common  sense — as  if  it  was  not 
obvious  that  the  offence  begins  with  the  laying  of  the  keel  for 
the  hostile  ship,  knowing  it  to  be  such ;  and  in  this  spirit  the 
Supreme  Court  has  decided  that  it  "  was  not  necessary  to  find 
that  a  ship  on  leaving  port  was  armed  or  in  a  condition  to 
commit  hostilities  ; — for  citizens  are  restrained  from  such  acts  as 
are-  calculated  to  involve  the  country  in  a  war."  U.  S.  vs.  Quincy, 
6  Peters,  445.)  The  second  apology  assumes,  that,  even  if  the 
armament  were  aboard  so  that  the  u  ship  of  war"  was  complete  at 
all  points,  still  the  expedition  would  be  lawful,  if  the  juggle  of  a 
sale  were  adroitly  employed.  But  on  this  point  the  Supreme 
Court,  speaking  by  Chief  Justice  Marshall,  has  left  no  doubt  of 
its  deliberate  and  most  authoritative  judgment.  In  the  case 
before  the  Court,  the  armament  was  aboard,  but  cleared  as 
cargo  ;  the  men  too  were  aboard  but  enlisted  for  a  commercial 
voyage ;  the  ship,  though  fitted  out  to  cruise  against  a  nation 
with  which  we  were  at  peace,  was  not  commissioned  as  a  privateer, 
and  did  not  attempt  to  act  as  such  until  she  had  reached  the 
River  La  Plata,  where  a  commission  was  obtained  and  the  crew 


18 

re-enlisted^  yet,  in  the  face  of  these  extenuating  circumstances,  it 
was  declared  by  the  whole  Court  that  the  neutrality  of  the  United 
States  had  been  violated,  so  that  the  guilty  ship  could  not  after 
wards  be  recognized  as  a  legitimate  cruiser.  All  these  disguises 
were  to  no  purpose.  The  Court  penetrated  them  every  one, 
saying  that,  if  such  a  ship  could  lawfully  sail  there  would  be  on 
our  part"  a  fraudulent  neutrality,  die-graceful  to  our  government, 
of  which  no  nation  would  be  the  dupe."  {The  Gran  Para,  1 
Wheat.,  471,  and  also  four  other  ca*es  in  same  volume.)  But  a 
"neutrality"  worse  even  than  that  condemned  in  advance  by  our 
Supreme  Court,  "  of  which  no  nation  would  be  the  dupe,"  is  now 
served  out  to  us,  which  nothing  but  the  fatal  war  spirit  that  has 
entered  into  Great  Britain  can  explain.  There  was  a  time  when 
the  Foreign  Secretary  of  England,  truly  eminent  as  statesman 
and  as  orator,  Mr.  Canning,  said  in  the  House  of  Commons  ;  Ct  If 
war  must  come,  let  it  come  in  the  shape  of  satisfaction  to  be 
demanded  for  injuries,  of  rights  to  be  asserted,  of  interests  to  be 
protected,  of  treaties  to  be  fulfilled.  But,  in  God's  name,  let  it 
not  come  on  in  the  paltry,  pettifogging  way  of  fitting  out  ships  in 
our  Jt  arbors  to  cruise  for  gain.  At  a/I  events  let  the  country  dis 
dain  to  be  sneaked  info  a  war"  (Canning's  Speeches,  Vol.  v. 

.61.)     These  noble  words  were  uttered  in  reply  to  Lord  John 

ussell  and  his  associates  in  1823,  on  their  proposition  to  repeal 
the  Foreign  Enlistment  Act  and  to  overturn  the  statute  safeguards 
of  British  neutrality.  But  they  speak  now  with  greater  force 
than  then. 

Even  if  it  be  admitted  that  "  ships  of  war,"  like  "  munitions  of 
war,"  may  be  sold  to  a  Belligerent,  as  is  asserted  by  the  British 
Prime  Minister,  echoing  the  Lord  Chief  Baron,  it  is  obvious  that 
it  can  be  only  with  the  distinction,  to  which  I  have  already  alluded, 
that  the  sale  is  a  commercial  transaction,  pure  and  simple,  and 
not,  in  any  respect,  a  hostile  expedition  fitted  out  in  England. 
The  ship  must  be  "  exported"  as  an  article  of  commerce,  and  it 
must  continue  such  until  its  arrival  at  the  belligerent  port, 
where  alone  can  it  be  fitted  out  and  commissioned  as  a  "  ship  of 
war,"  when  its  hostile  character  will  commence.  Any  attempt 
in  England  to  impart  to  it  a  hostile  character,  or,  in  one  word,  to 
make  England  its  naval  base,  must  be  criminal ;  but  this  is 
precisely  what  has  been  done.  And  here  are  the  leonine  foot 
prints  which  point  so  badly. 

.(11.)  But  not  content  with  misconstruing  the  decisions  of  our 
Supreme  Court,  in  order  to  make  them  a  cover  for  naval  expedi 
tions  to  depredate  on  our  commerce,  our  whole  history  is  forgotten 
or  misrepresented.  It  is  forgotten,  that,  as  early  as  1793,  under 
the  administration  of  Washington,  before  any  Act  of  Congress  on 
the  subject,  the  National  Government  recognized  its  liability, 
under  the  Law  of  Nations,  for  ships  fitted  out  in  its  ports  to  depre 
date  on  British  commerce  ;  that  Washington,  in  a  Message  to 


19 

Congress,  describes  such  ships  as  "  vessels  commissioned  or 
equipped  in  a  warlike  form,  within  the  limits  of  the  United. 
States,"  and  also  as  "  military  expeditions  or  enterprises," 
(American  S'ate  Papers,  Vol.  i.  p.  22.)  and  that  Jefferson,  in 
vindicating  this  policy  of  repression,  said,  in  a  letter  to  the  French 
Minister,  that  "it  was  our  wish  to  preserve  the  morals  of  our 
citizens  from  being  vitiated  by  courses  of  lawless  plunder  and 
murder;"  (Ibid,  148.)  that,  on  this  occasion  the  National 
Government  made  the  distinction  between  "  munitions  of  war  " 
which  a  neutral  might  supply  in  the  way  of  commerce  to  a  bellig- 
ent,  and  "ships  of  war,"  which  a  neutral  was  not  allowed  to 
supply,  or  even  to  augment  with  arms;  that  Mr.  Hammond,  the 
British  plenipotentiary  at  th  it  time,  by  his  letter  of  8th  May, 
1793,  after  complaining  of  two  French  privateers  fitted  out  at 
Charleston,  to  cruise  against  British  Commerce,  expressly  declares 
that  he  considers  them  "breaches  of  that  neutrality  which  the 
United  States  profess  to  observe,  and  direct  contraventions  of  the 
Proclamation  which  the  President  had  issued,"  (  Whartorfs  Slate 
Trial*,  p.  49,)  and  that  very  soon  there  were  criminal  proceed 
ings,  at  British  instigation,  on  account  of  these  privateers,  in 
which  it  was  affirmed  by  the  Court,  that  such  ships  could  not  be 
fitted  out  in  a  neutral  port  without  a  violation  of  international 
obligations;  that,  promptly  tliereafterwards,  on  the  application 
of  the  British  Government,  a  statute  was  enacted,  in  harmony 
with  the  Law  of  Nations,  for  the  better  maintenance  of  our  neu 
trality  ;  that,  in  1818,  Congress  enacted  another  statute  in  the 
nature  of  a  Foreign  Enlistment  Act,  which  was  proposed  as 
an  example  by  Lord  Castlereagh,  when  urging  a  similar  statute 
upon  Parliament ;  that  in  1823  the  conduct  of  the  United 
States  on  this  whole  head  was  proposed  as  an  example  to  the 
British  Parliament  by  Mr.  Canning;  that,  in  1887,  during  the 
rebellion  in  Canada,  on  the  application  of  the  British  Govern 
ment,  and  to  its  special  satisfaction,  as  was  announced  in  Par 
liament  by  Lord  Palmers  ton,  who  was  at  the  time  Foreign 
Secretary,  our  Government  promptly  declared  its  purpose  "  to 
maintain  the  supremacy  of  those  laws  which  had  been  passed  to 
fulfil  the  obligations  of  the  United  States  towards  all  nations 
which  should  be  engaged  in  foreign  or  domestic  warfare ;"  and, 
not  satisfied  with  its  existing  powers,  undertook  to  a^k  additional 
legislation  from  Congress  ;  that  Congress  proceeded  at  once  to  the 
enactment  of  another  statute,  calculated  to  meet  the  immediate 
exigency,  wherein  it  was  provided  that  collectors,  marshals  and 
other  officers  shall  u  seize  and  detain  any  vessel  which  may  be 
provided  or  prepared  for  any  military  expedition  or  enterprise 
against  the  territories  or  dominions  of  any  Foreign  Prince  or 
Power."  (Statutes  at  Large,  Vol.  v.  p.  212.)  It  is  something 
to  forget  these  things ;  but  it  is  convenient  to  forget  still  further 
that,  on  the  breaking  out  of  the  Crimean  War,  in  1854.  the 


20 

British  Government,  jointly  with  France,  made  another  appeal  to 
the  United  States,  that  our  citizens  "  should  rigorously  abstain 
from  taking  part  in  armaments  of  Russian  privateers,  or  in  any 
other  measure  opposed  to  the  duties  of  a  strict  neutrality  "  and 
this  appeal,  which  was  declared  by  the  British  Government  to  be 
"in  the  spirit  of  just  reciprocity,"  was  answered  on  our  part  by  a 
sincere  and  determined  vigilance,  so  that  not  a  single  British  or 
French  ship  suffered  from  any  cruiser  fitted  out  in  our  ports. 
And  it  is  also  convenient  to  forget  still  further  the  solemn  obliga 
tions  of  Treaty,  binding  on  both  parties,  by  which  it  is  stipulated, 

"  That  the  subjects  and  citizens  of  the  two  nations  shaft  not  do  any  acts  of 
hostility  or  violence  against  each  other,  nor  accept  commissions  or  instructions 
so  to  act  from  any  foreign  prince  or  state,  enemies  to  the  other  party  ;  nor 
shall  the  enemies  of  one  of  the  parties  be  permitted  to  invite  or  endeavor 
to  enlist  in  their  military  service,  any  of  the  subjects  or  citizens  of  the  other 
party  ;  and  the  laws  against  all  such  offences  and  aggressions  shall  be  punc 
tually  executed"  (Statutes  at  Large,  Vol.  viii.  p.  127.) 

But  at  the  date  of  this  Treaty,  in  1794,  there  was  little  legislation 
on  the  subject  in  either  country  ;  so  that  the  Treaty,  in  harmony 
with  the  practice,  testifies  to  the  requirements  of  the  Law  of 
Nations,  as  understood  at  the  time  by  both  Powers. 

And  yet,  forgetting  all  these  things, — which  show  how  faith 
fully  the  National  Government  has  acted,  both  in  measures 
of  repression  and  measures  of  compensation — also  how  often  the 
British  Government  has  asked  and  received  protection  at  our 
hands,  and  how  highly  our  example  of  neutrality  has  been  appre 
ciated  by  leading  British  statesmen — and  forgetting  also  that 
u  spirit  of  just  reciprocity"  which,  besides  being  the  prompting 
of  an  honest  nature,  had  been  positively  promised — ship  after  ship 
is  permitted  to  leave  British  ports  to  depredate  on  our  commerce  ; 
and  when  we  complain  of  this  outrage,  so  unprecedented  and  so 
unjustifiable,  all  the  obligations  of  International  Law  are  ignored, 
and  we  are  petulantly  told  that  the  evidence  against  the  ships  is 
not  sufficient  under  the  statute;  and  when  we  propose  that  the 
statute  shall  be  rendered  efficient  for  the  purpose,  precisely  as  in 
past  times  the  British  Government,  under  circumstances  less 
stringent,  proposed  to  us,  we  are  pointedly  repelled  by  the  old 
baronial  declaration,  that  there  must  be  no  change  in  the  laws  of 
England ;  while  to  cap  this  strange  insensibility,  Lord  Palmerston, 
in  one  of  the  last  debates  of  the  late  Parliament,  brings  against 
us  a  groundless  charge  of  infidelity  to  our  neutral  duties  during 
the  Crimean  war,  when  the  fact  is  notoriously  the  reverse,  and 
Lord  Russell,  in  the  same  spirit,  imagines  an  equally  groundless 
charge,  which  he  records  in  a  despatch,  that  we  have  recently 
enlisted  men  in  Ireland,  when  notoriously  we  have  done  no  such 
thing.  Thus  all  the  obligations  of  reciprocal  service  and  good 
will  are  openly  discarded,  while  our  public  conduct,  as  well  in 
the  past  as  the  present,  is  openly  misrepresented. 


2.1 

(12.)  This  flagrant  oblivion  of  history  and  of  duty,  -which  seems 
to  bo  the  adopted  policy  of  the  •  British  Government,  has  beea 
characteristically  followed  by  a  flat  refusal  to  pay  for  the  damages 
to  our  commerce  caused  by  the  hostile  expeditions.  The  United 
States,  under  Washington,  on  the  application  of  the  British 
Government,  made  compensation  for  damages  to  British  commerce 
under  circumstances  much  less  vexatious,  and,  still  further,  by 
special  treaty,  made  compensation  for  damages  "  by  vessels  origi 
nally  armed  "  in  our  ports,  which  is  the  present  case.  Of  course, 
it  can  make  no  difference — not  a  pin's  difference — if  the  armament 
is  carried  out  to  sea,  in  another  vessel  from  a  British  port,  and  there 
transhipped.  Such  an  evasion  may  be  effectual  against  a  Par 
liamentary  statute,  but  it  will  be  impotent  against  a  demand  upon 
the  British  Government,  according  to  the  principles  of  Interna 
tional  Law ;  for  this  law  looks  always  at  the  substance  and  not  the 
form,  and  will  not  be  diverted  by  the  trick  of  a  pettifogger. 
Whether  the  armament  be  put  on  board  in  port  or  at  sea, 
England  is  always  the  naval  base,  or,  according  to  the  language 
of  Sir  William  Scott,  in  a  memorable  case,  the  "  station "  or 
"  vantage  ground," — which  he  declared  a  neutral  country  could 
not  be.  (Twee  Gebroeders,  3  Robinson,  R.  162.)  Therefore, 
the  early  precedent  between  the  United  States  and  England 
is  in  every  respect  completely  applicable,  and  since  this  prece 
dent  was  established  —  not  only  by  the  consent  of  England  but 
at  her  motion  —  it  must  be  accepted  on  the  present  occasion 
as  an  irreversible  declaration  of  International  duty.  Other 
nations  might  differ,  but  England  is  bound.  And  now  it  is 
her  original  interpretation,  first  made  to  take  compensation  from 
us,  which  is  flatly  rejected,  when  we  ask  compensation  from  her. 
But  even  if  the  responsibility  for  a  hostile  expedition  fitted  out  in 
British  ports  were  not  plain,  there  is  something  in  the  recent  con 
duct  of  the  British  Government  calculated  to  remove  all  doubt 
Pirate  ships  are  reported  on  the  stocks  ready  to  be  launched,  and 
when  the  Parliamentary  statute  is  declared  insufficient  to  stop 
them,  the  British  Government  declines  to  amend  it,  and  so  doing, 
it  openly  declines  to  stop  the  pirate  ships,  saying,  "  if  the  Parlia 
mentary  statute  is  inadequate  then  let  them  sail."  It  is  not 
needful  to  consider  the  apology.  The  act  of  declension  is  positive 
and  its  consequences  are  no  less  positive,  fixing  beyond  question 
the  responsibility  of  the  British  Government  for  these  criminal 
expeditions.  In  thus  fixing  this  responsibility,  we  but  follow  the 
suggestions  of  reason,  and  the  text  of  an  approved  authority, 
whose  words  have  been  adopted  in  England. 

"  It  must  be  laid  down  as  a  maxim,  that  a  sovereign,  who,  knowing  the 
crimes  of  his  subjects,  as  for  example  that  they  practice  piracy  on  strangers, 
and  being  also  able  and  obliged  to  hinder  it,  does  not  hinder  it,  renders 
himself  criminal,  because  he  has  consented  to  the  bad  action,  the  commission 


22 

of  which  he  lias  permitted.  It  is  presumed  that  a  Sovereign  knows  what 
his  subjects  openly  ami  frequently  commit,  ami,  as  to  his  power  of  hindering 
the  fril.  this  likewise  is  always  presumed,  unless  the  want  of  it  be  clearly 
proved." 

Fueli  are  the  words  of  Burlamaqui,  in  his  work  on  Natural  Law, 
quoted  with  approbation  by  Pliilliiuore  in  his  work  on  the  Law 
of  Nations. — (Pliillimore,  Vol.  i.  p.  i!37.)  Unless  these  words  are 
discarded  as  "  a  maxim," — while  the  early  precedent  of  British 
demand  upon  us  for  compensation  is  abo  rudely  rejected — it  is 
difficult  to  see  how  the  British  Government  can  avoid  the  conse 
quences  of  co'mplicity  with  the  pirate  ships  in  all  their  lawless 
devastation.  But  I  forbear  to  dwell  on  this  accumulating  liability, 
amounting  already  to  many  millions  of  dollars,  with  accumulating 
exasperations  also.  My  present  object  is  accomplished,'  if  I 
make  you  see  which  way  danger  lies. 

(13.)  But  beyond  acts  and  words  this  same  British  rabbia 
shows  itself  in  the  official  tone,  which  has  been  adopted  towards 
the  National  cause  in  its  unparalelled  struggle— especially 
throughout  the  correspondence  of  the  British  Foreign  Office.  Of 
course,  there  is  no  friendship  in  any  of  these  letters.  Nor  is  there 
any  sympathy  with  the  National  championship  against  Rebel  Slave- 
mongers,  nor  one  word  of  mildest  dissent  even  from  the  miscreant 
apostolate  which  was  preached  in  their  behalf.  Naturally  the 
tone  is  in  harmony  with  the  sentiment.  Hard,  curt,  captious, 
cynical,  it  evinces  an  indifference  to  those  kindly  relations  which 
nations  ought  to  cultivate  with  each  other,  and  which  should  be 
the  study  of  a  wise  statesmanship.  The  Malay  runs  a-muck,  and 
such  is  the  favorite  diplomatic  style  in  dealing  with  us.  This  is 
painfully  conspicuous  in  all  that  concerns  the  pirate  ships.  But 
I  can  well  understand  that  a  Minister,  who  so  easily  conceded 
Belligerent  Rights  to  Rebel  Slave-mongers,  and  then  so  easily 
permitted  their  ships  to  sally  forth  for  piracy,  would  be  very 
indifferent  to  the  tone  of  what  he  wrote.  And  yet  even  outrage 
may  be  soothed  or  softened  by  gentle  words ;  but  none  such  have 
come  out  of  British  diplomacy  to  us.  Most  deeply  do  1  regret 
this  too  suggestive  failure.  And  believe  me,  fellow  citizens,  I  say 
these  things  with  sorrow  unspeakable,  and  only  in  discharge  of 
my  duty  on  this  occasion,  when,  face  to  face,  I  meet  you  to 
consider  the  aspects  of  our  affairs  abroad. 

(14.)  But  there  is  still  another  head  of  danger  in  which  all 
others  culminate.  I  refer  to  an  intrusive  Mediation  or,  it  may  be, 
a  Recognition  of  the  Slave-monger  pretension  as  an  Independent 
Nation  ;  for  such  propositions  have  been  openly  made  in  Parlia 
ment  and  constantly  urged  by  the  British  press,  and,  though  not 
yet  adopted  by  her  Majesty's  Government,  they  have  never  been 
repelled  on  principle,  so  that  they  constitute  a  perpetual  cloud, 
threatening  to  break,  in  our  foreign  relations.  It  is  plain  to  all 


23 

who  have  not  forgotten  history,  that  England  never  can  be  guilty 
of  such  Recognition  without  an -unpardonable  apostacy ;  nor  can 
she  intervene  hy  way  of  Mediation  except  in  the  interests  of 
Freedom.  And  yet  such  are  the  strange  "elective  affinities" 
newly  horn  between  England  and  Slavery ;  such  is  the  towering 
blindness,  with  regard  to  our  country,  kindred  to  that  which  pre 
vailed  in  the  time  of  George  Grenville  and  Lord  North,  that  her 
Majesty's  Government,  instead  of  repelling  the  proposition,  simply 
ad;ourn  it,  meanwhile  adopting  the  attitude  of  one  watching  to 
strike.  The  British  Minister  at  Washington,  of  model  prudence, 
whose  individual  desire  for  peace  I  cannot  doubt,  tells  his  Govern 
ment  in  a  despatch  which  will  be  found  in  the  last  Blue  Book, 
that  as  yet  he  sees  no  sign  of  "  a  conjuncture  at  which  Foreign 
Powers  may  step  in  with  propriety  and  effect  to  put  a  stop  to  the 
effusion  of  blood."  Here  is  a  plain  assumption  that  such  a  con 
juncture  may  occur.  But  for  the  present  we  are  left  free  to  wage 
the  battle  against  Slavery  without  any  such  Intervention  in  arrest 
of  our  efforts. 

Such  are  some  of  the  warnings  which  lower  from  the  English 
sky,  bending  over  the  graves  of  Wilberforce  and  Glarkson,  while 
sounding  from  these  sacred  graves  are  heard  strange,  un-English 
voices,  crying  out,  "  Come  unto  us,  Rebel  Slave-mongers,  whip- 
pers  of  women  and  sellers  of  children,  for  you  are  the  people 
of  our  choice,  whom  we  welcome  promptly  to  ocean  rights — 
with  Armstrong  guns  and  naval  expeditions  equipped  in  our 
ports,  and  on  whom  we  lavish  sympathy  always  and  the  prophecy 
of  success  ; — while  for  you,  who  uphold  the  Republic  and  oppose 
Slavery,  we  have  hard  words,  criticism,  rebuke  and  the  menace 
of  war." 

Perils  from  France. 

If  we  cross  the  channel  into  France,  we  shall  not  be  encouraged 
much.  And  yet  the  Emperor,  though  acting  habitually  in  concert 
with  the  British  Cabinet,  has  not  intermeddled  so  illogically  or 
displayed  a  temper  of  so  little  international  amiability.  The 
correspondence  under  his  direction,  even  at  the  most  critical 
moments,  leaves  little  to  be  desired  in  respect  of  form.  Nor  has 
there  been  a  single  blockade-runner  under  the  French  flag;  nor 
a  single  pirate  ship  from  a  French  port.  But  in  spite  of  these 
things,  it  is  too  apparent  that  the  Emperor  has  taken  sides  against 
us  in  at  least  four  important  public  acts — positively,  plainly, 
offensively.  The  Duke  de  Choiseul,  Prime  Minister  of  France, 
was  addressed  by  Frederick  the  Great,  as  "  the  coachman  of 
Europe," — a  title  which  belongs  now  to  Louis  Napoleon.  But  he 
must  not  try  to  be  u  the  coachman  of  America." 

(1.)  Following  the  example  of  England  Louis  Napoleon  has 
acknowledged  the  Rebel  Slave-mongers  as  ocean  Belligerents,  so 
that  with  the  sanction  of  France,  our  ancient  ally,  their  pirate 


24 

ships,  although  without  a  single  open  port  which  they  can  call 
their  own,  enjoy  a  complete  immunity  as  lawful  cruisers,  while  all 
who  sympathize  with  them  may  furnish  supplies  and  munitions  of 
war.  This  fatal  concession  was  aggravated  by  the  concurrence 
of  the  two  great  Powers.  But,  God  be  praised,  their  joint  act, 
though  capable  of  giving  a  brief  vitality  to  Slavery  on  pirate 
decks,  will  be  impotent  to  confirm  this  intolerable  pretension. 

(:!.)  Sinister  events  are  not  alone  and  this  recognition  of 
Slavery  was  followed  by  an  expedition  of  France,  in  concurrence 
with  England  and  Spain,  against  our  neighbor  Republic,  Mexico. 
The  two  latter  Powers,  with  becoming  wisdom,  very  soon  with 
drew  ;  but  the  Emperor  did  not  hesitate  to  enter  upon  an  invasion. 
A  French  fleet  with  an  unmatched  iron-clad,  the  consummate 
product  of  French  naval  art,  is  now  at  Vera  Cruz  and  the  French 
army  after  a  protracted  siege  has  stormed  Puebla  and  entered  the 
famous  Capital.  This  far-reaching  enterprise  was  originally  said 
to  be  a  sort  of  process,  served  by  a  general,  for  the  recovery  of 
outstanding  debts  due  to  French  citizens.  But  the  Emperor  in  a 
mystic  letter  to  General  Forey  gave  to  it  another  character.  He 
proposed  nothing  less  than  the  restoration  of  the  Latin  race  on 
this  side  of  the  Atlantic,  and  more  than  intimates  that  the  United 
States  must  be  restrained  in  power  and  influence  over  the  Gulf 
of  Mexico  and  the  Antilles.  And  now  the  Archduke  Maximilian 
of  Austria  has  been  proclaimed  Emperor  of  Mexico  under  the 
protection  of  France.  It  is  obvious  that  this  imperial  invasion, 
though  not  openly  directed  against  us,  would  not  have  been  made, 
if  our  convulsions  had  not  left  the  door  of  the  continent  ajar,  so 
that  foreign  Powers  may  now  bravely  enter  in.  And  it  is  more 
obvious. that  this  attempt  to  plant  a  throne  by  our  side  would 
"have  died  before  it  saw  the  light,"  had  it  not  been  supposed  that 
the  Rebel  Slave-mongers  were  about  to  triumph.  Plainly  the 
whole  transaction  is  connected  with  our  affairs.  But  it  can  be 
little  more  than  a  transient  experiment — for  who  can  doubt  that 
this  imperial  exotic,  planted  by  foreign  care  and  propped  by 
foreign  bayonets,  will  disappear  before  the  ascending  glory  of  the 
Republic. 

(8.)  This  enterprise  of  war  was  followed  by  an  enterprise  of 
diplomacy  not  less  hardy  The  Emperor,  not  content  with  stirring 
against  us  the  gulf  of  Mexico,  the  Antilles  and  the  Latin  race, 
entered  upon  work  of  a  different  character.  He  invited  England 
and  Russia  to  unite  with  France  in  tendering  to  the  two  Belliger 
ents  (such  is  the  equal  designation  of  our  Republic  and  the 
embryo  slave-monger  mockery  !)  their  joint  Mediation  to  procure 
"  an  armistice  for  six  months,  during  which  every  act  of  war, 
direct  or  indirect,  should  provisionally  cease  on  sea  as  well  as  on 
land,  to  be  renewed  if  necessary  for  a  further  period."  The 
Cabinets  of  England  and  Russia,  better  inspired,  declined  the 
invitation,  which  looked  to  little  short  of  Recognition  itself.  Under 


25 

the  armistice  proposed  all  our  vast  operations  must  have  been 
suspended — the  blockade  itself  must  have  ceased — while  the  rebel 
ports  were  opened  on  the  one  side  to  unlimited  imports  of  supplies 
and  military  stores,  and  on  the  other  side  to  unlimited  exports  of 
cotton.  Trade  for  the  time  would  have  been  legalized  in  these 
ports,  and  Slavery  would  have  lifted  its  grinning  front  before  the 
civilized  world.  Not  disheartened  by  this  failure,  the  Emperor 
alone  pushed  forward  his  diplomatic  enterprise  against  us,  as  he 
had  alone  pushed  forward  his  military  enterprise  against  Mexico, 
and  he  proposed  to  our  Government  the  unsupported  mediation 
of  France.  His  offer  was  promptly  rejected  by  the  President. 
Congress  by  solemn  resolutions,  adopted  by  both  Houses,  with 
singular  unanimity,  and  communicated  since  to  all  foreign  govern 
ments,  announced  that  such  a  proposition  could  be  attributed 
only  t%  to  a  misunderstanding  of  the  true  state  of  the  question 
and  the  real  character  of  the  war  in  which  the  Republic  is 
engaged  ;  and  that  it  was  in  its  nature  so  far  injurious  to  the 
national  interests  that  Congress  would  be  obliged  to  consider  its 
repetition  an  unfriendly  act."  This  is  strong  language,  but  it 
frankly  states  the  true  position  of  our  country.  Any  such  offer, 
whatever  may  be  its  motive,  must  be  an  encouragement  to  the 
Rebellion.  In  an  age  when  ideas  prevail  and  even  words  become 
things,  the  simple  declarations  of  statesmen  are  of  incalculable 
importance.  But  the  head  of  a  great  nation  is  more  than  states 
man.  The  imperial  proposition  tended  directly  to  the  dismem-. 
her  men  t  of  the  Republic  and  the  substitution  of  a  ghastly  Slave- 
monger  nation. 

Baffled  in  this  effort,  twice  attempted,  the  Emperor  does  not 
yet  abandon  its  policy.  We  are  told  that  "  it  is  postponed  to  a 
more  suitable  opportunity ;"  so  that  he  too  waits  to  strike- — if  the 
Gallic  cock  does  not  sound  the  alarm  in  an  opposite  quarter. 
Meanwhile  the  development  of  the  Mexican  expedition  shows  too 
clearly  the  motive  of  mediation.  It  was  all  one  transaction. 
Mexico  was  invaded  for  empire,  and  mediation  was  proposed  in 
order  to  help  the  plot.  But  the  invasion  must  fail  with  the 
diplomacy  to  which  it  is  allied. 

(4 )  But  the  policy  of  the  French  Emperor  towards  our 
Republic  has  not  been  left  to  any  uncertain  inference.  For  a 
long  time  public  report  has  declared  him  to  be  unfriendly,  and 
now  public  report  is  confirmed  by  what  he  has  done  and  said. 
The  ambassadorial  attorney  of  Rebel  Slave-mongers  has  been 
received  by  him  at  the  Tuilleries ;  members  of  Parliament,  ou  an 
errand  of  hostility  to  our  cause,  have  been  received  by  him  at 
Fontaineblcau  ;  and  the  official  declaration  has  been  made  that 
he  dr. sires  to  recognize  the  Rebel  Slave-mongers  a.s  an  Independent 
Power.  This  has  been  hard  to  believe  ;  but  it  is  too  true.  The 
French  Emperor  is  against  us.  In  an  evil  hour,  under  tempta 
tions  which  should  be  scouted,  he  forgets  the  precious  tradi- 


26 

tions  of  France  whose  blood  commingled  with  ours  in  a  common 
causH  ;  he  forgets  the  sword  of  Lafayette  and  Rochamheau  iii>li- 
ing  by  the  side  of  the  sword  of  Washington  and  Lincoln,  while 
the  lilies  of  the  ancient  monarchy  floated  together  with  the 
stars  of  our  infant  flag;  he  forgets  that  early  alliance,  sealed 
by  Franklin,  which  gave  to  the  Republic  the  assurance  of 
national  life,  and  made  France  the  partner  of  her  rising  glory ; 
Heu  pietas,  heu  prisca  fides, — manibus  date  liliaplenis;  and  he 
forgets  still  more  the  obligations  of  his  own  name, — how  the 
first  Napoleon  surrendered  to  us  Louisiana  and  the  whole  region 
West  of  the  Mississippi,  saying,  "  this  accession  of  territory 
establishes  forever  the  power  of  the  United  Hates,  and  gives  to 
England  a  maritime  rival  destined  to  humble  her  pride  ; "  and 
he  forgets  also  how  he  himself,  when  beginning  his  Intervention 
for  Italian  Liberty,  boasted  proudly  that  France  always  stood  for 
an  "  idea;"  and,  forgetting  these  things,  which  mankind  cannot 
forget,  he  seeks  the  disjunction  of  this  Republic,  with  the  spoliation 
of  that  very  territory,  which  had  come  to  us  from  the  fmt  Napo 
leon,  while  France,  always  standing  for  an  "  idea  "  is  made  under 
his  auspices  to  stand  ifor  the  "  idea  "  of  welcome  to  a  new  evangel 
of  Slavery,  with  Mason  and  Slidell  as  the  evangelists.  Thus  is 
the  imperial  influence  thrown  on  the  side  of  Rebel  Slave-mongers. 
Unlike  the  ancient  Gaul,  the  Emperor  forbears  for  the  present  to 
fling  his  sword  into  the  scale  ;  but  he  flings  his  heavy  hand,  if 
not  his  sword. 

But  only  recently  we  have  the  menace  of  the  sword.  The 
throne  of  Mexico  has  been  offered  to  an  Austrian  Archduke.  The 
de&ire  to  recognize  the  Independence  of  Rebel  Slave-mongers  has 
been  officially  declared.  These  two  incidents  are  to  be  taken 
together — as  the  complements  of  each  other.  And  now  we  are 
assured  by  concurring  report,  that  Mexico  is  to  be  maintained  as 
an  Empire.  The  policy  of  the  Holy  Alliance,  originally  organized 
against  the  great  Napoleon,  is  adopted  by  his  representative 
on  the  throne  of  France.  What  its  despot  authors  left  undone 
the  present  Emperor,  nephew  of  the  first,  proposes  to  accomplish. 
It  is  said  that  Texas  also  is  to  be  brought  under  the  Imperial  Pro 
tectorate,  thus  ravishing  a  possession,  which  belongs  to  this 
Republic,  as  much  as  Normandy  belongs  to  France.  The  u  parti 
tion  "  of  Poland  is  acknowledged  to  be  the  great  crime  of  the  la,st 
century.  It  was,  accomplished  by  Three  Powers,  with  the  silent 
connivance  of  the  rest ;  but  not  without  pangs  of  remorse  on  the  part 
of  one  of  the  spoilers.  "  I  know,"  said  Maria  Theresa  to  the  ambas 
sador  of  Louis  XVI.,  "that  I  have  brought  a  deep  stain  on  my 
reign  by  what  has  been  done  in  Poland  ;  but  I  am  sure  that  I  bhould 
be  forgiven,  if  it  could  be  known  what  repugnance  I  had  to  it." 
(Flassan,  Histoire  de  la  Diplomatic  Francaise,  Vol.  vii.  p.  125.) 
But  the  French  Emperor  seeks  to  play  on  this  continent  the  very 
part  which  of  old  caused  the  contrition  of  Maria  Theresa ;  nor  could 


27 

the  "  partition"  of  our  broad  country  —  if  in  an  evil  hour  it  were 
accomplished  —  fail  to  be  the  great  crime  of  the  present  century. 
Trampler  upon  the  Republic  in  France  —  tramplcr  upon  the  Repub 
lic  in  Mexico  —  it  remains  to  be  f-een  if  the  French  Emperor  can 
prevail  as  trampler  upon  this  Republic.  I  do  not  think  he  can  ; 
nor  am  I  anxious  on  account  of  the  new  Emperor  of  Mexico,  who 
will  be  as  powerless  as  King  Canute  against  the  rising  tide  of  the 
American  people.  His  chair  inu&t  be  withdrawn  or  he  will  be 
overwhelmed. 

And  here  I  bring  to  an  end  this  unpleasant  review.  It  is  with 
small  satisfaction,  and  only  in  explanation  of  our  relations  with 
Foreign  Powers,  that  I  have  accumulated  these  instances,  not  one 
of  which,  small  as  well  as  great,  is  without  its  painful  lesson, 
while  they  all  testify  witli  a  single  voice  to  the  perils  ot  our 
country. 


FOREIGN  INTERVENTION,  BY  MEDIATION  OR  INTERCESSION. 

But  there  is  another  branch  of  the  subject,  which  is  not  less 
important.  Considering  all  these  things  and  especially  how  great 
Powers  abroad  have  constantly  menaced  Intervention  in  our  war, 
now  by  criticism  and  now  by  proffers  of  Mediation,  all  tending 
painfully  to  something  further,  it  becomes  us  to  see  what,  accord 
ing  to  the  principles  of  International  Law  and  the  examples 
of  history  will  justify  Foreign  Intervention,  in  any  of  the  forms 
which  it  may  take.  And  here  there  is  one  remark  which  may 
be  made  at  the  outset.  Nations  are  equal  in  the  eye  of  Inter 
national  Law,  so  that  what  is  right  for  one  is  right  for  all.  It 
follows  that  no  nation  can  justly  exercise  any  right  which  it 
is  not  bound  to  concede  under  like  circumstances.  Therefore, 
should  our  cases  be  reversed,  there  is  nothing  which  England 
and  France  have  now  proposed  or  which  they  may  hereafter 
propose  which  it  will  not  be  our  equal  right  to  propose,  when 
Ireland  or  India  once,  more  rebel,  or  when  France  is  in  the  throes 
of  its  next  revolution.  Generously  and  for  the  sake  of  that  Inter 
national  Comity,  which  should  not  be  lightly  hazarded,  we  may 
reject  the  precedents  they  now  furnish  ;  but  it  will  be  hard  for 
them  to  complain  if  we  follow  them. 

Foreign  Intervention  is  on  its  face  inconsistent  with  every  idea 
of  National  Independence,  which  in  itself  is  nothing  more  than 
the  conceded  right  of  a  nation  to  rest  undisturbed  so  long  as  it 
does  not  disturb  others.  If  nations  stood  absolutely  alone,  dis 
sociated  from  each  other,  so  that  what  passed  in  one  had  little  or 
no  influence  in  another,  only  a  tyrannical  or  intermeddling  spirit 
could  fail  to  recognize  this  right.  .But  civilization  itself,  by  draw 
ing  nations  nearer  together  and  bringing  them  into  one  society, 
has  brought  them  under  reciprocal  influence,  so  that  no  nation 


28 

can  now  act  or  suffer  by  itself  alone.  Out  of  the  relations  and 
suggestions  of  good  neighborhood — involving,  of  course,  the  admit 
ted  right  of  self-defence — springs  the  only  justification  or  apology 
which  can  be  found  for  Foreign  Intervention,  which  is  the  general 
term  to  signify  an  interposition  in  the  affairs  of  another  coun 
try,  whatever  form  it  may  take.  Much  is  done  under  the  name 
of  "  good  offices,"  whether  in  the  form  of  Mediation  or  Interces 
sion  ;  and  much  also  by  military  power,  whether  in  the  declared  will 
of  superior  force  or  directly  by  arms.  Recognition  of  Indepen-  ' 
dence  is  also  another  instance.  Intervention  in  any  form  is 
interference.  If  peaceable  it  must  be  judged  by  its  motive  and 
tendency;  if  forcible  it  will  naturally  be  resisted  by  force. 

Intervention  may  be  between  two  or  more  nations,  or  it  may  be 
between  the  two  parties  to  a  civil  war ;  and  yet  again,  it  may  be 
where  there  is  no  war,  foreign  or  domestic.  In  each  case,  it 
should  be  governed  strictly  by  the  same  principles,  except,  per 
haps,  that,  in  the  case  of  a  civil  war,  there  should  be  a  more 
careful  consideration,  not  only  of  the  rights,  but  of  the  suscepti 
bilities  of  a  nation  so  severely  tried.  This  is  the  obvious  sugges 
tion  of  humanity.  Indeed,  Intervention  between  nations  is  only 
a  common  form  of  participation  in  foreign  war  ;  but  intervention 
in  a  civil  war  is  an  intermeddling  in  the  domestic  concerns  of 
another  nation.  Of  course,  whoever  acts  at  the  joint  invitation 
of  the  belligerent  parties,  in  order  to  compose  a  bloody  strife,  will 
be  entitled  to  the  blessings  which  belong  to  the  peace-makers ; 
but,  if  uninvited,  or  acting  only  at  the  invitation  of  one  party, 
he  will  be  careful  to  proceed  with  reserve  and  tenderness,  in  the 
spirit  of  peace,  and  will  confine  his  action  to  a  proffer  of  good 
offices  in  the  form  of  Mediation  or  Intercession,  unless  he  is  ready 
for  war.  Such  a  proffer  may  be  declined  without  offence.  But 
it  can  never  be  forgotten  that,  where,  one  side  is  obviously  fighting 
for  Barbarism,  any  Intervention,  whatever  form  it  may  take, — if 
only  by  captious  criticism,  calculated  to  give  encouragement  to 
the  wrong  side,  or  to  secure  for  it  time  or  temporary  toleration, 
if  not  final  success, — is  plainly  immoral.  If  not  contrary  to  the 
Law  of  Nations,  it  ought  to  be. 

Intervention,  in  the  spirit  of  Peace  and  for  the  sake  of  Peace, 
is  one  of  the  refinements  of  modern  civilization.  Intervention, 
in  the  spirit  of  war,  if  not  for  the  sake  of  war,  has  filled  a  large 
space  in  history,  ancient  and  modern.  But  all  these  instances 
may  bo  grouped  under  two  heads;  first,  Intervention  in  external 
affairs;  and,  secondly,  Intervention  in  internal  affairs.  The  first 
may  be  illustrated  by  the  Intervention  of  the  Elector  Maurice,  of 
Saxony,  against  Charles  V.  ;  of  King  William  against  Louis 
XIV. ;  of  Russia  and  France,  in  the  seven  years'  war  ;  of  Russia 
a<rain  between  France  and  Austria,  in  1805,  and  also  between 
France  and  Prussia,  in  1808;  and  of  France,  Great  Britain  and 
Sardinia,  between  Turkey  and  Russia,  in  the  war  of  the  Crimea. 


29 

The  Intervention  of  Russia,  Austria,  and  Prussia,  in  the  affairs 
of  Poland;  of  Great  Britain  among  the  native  Powers  of  India  ; 
and  of  the  Allied  Powers,  under  the  continued  inspiration  of  the 
Treaty  of  Pilnitz,  in  the  French  Revolution,  are  illustrations  of 
the  second  head.  But  without  dwelling  on  these  great  examples, 
I  shall  call  attention  to  instances,  which  show  more  especially  the 
growth  of  intervention,  first,  in.  external,  and,  then,  in  internal 
affairs.  And  here  I  shall  conceal  nothing.  Instances,  which 
seem  to  be  against  the  principles  which  I  have  at  heart,  will  at 
least  help  to  illustrate  the  great  subject,  so  that  you  may  see  it 
as  it  is. 

Intervention  in  External  Affairs. 

(1.)  First  in  order,  and  for  the  sake  of  completeness,  I  speak 
of  Intervention  in  external  affairs,  where  two  or  more  nations  are 
parties. 

As  long  ago  as  1645,  France  offered  Mediation  between  what 
was  then  called  "  the  two  crowns  of  the  North,"  Sweden  and 
Denmark.  This  was  followed,  in  1648,  by  the  famous  Peace  of 
Westphalia,  the  beginning  of  our  present  Law  of  Nations,  which 
was  negotiated  under  the  joint  Mediation  of  the  Pope  and  the 
Republic  of  Venice,  present  by  Nuncio  and  Ambassador.  Shortly 
afterwards,  in  1655,  the  Emperor  of  Germany  offered  his  Media 
tion  between  Sweden  and  Poland,  but  the  old  historian  records 
that  the  Swedes  suspected  him  of  seeking  to  increase  rather  than 
to  arrange  pending  difficulties,  which  was  confirmed  by  his 
appearance  shortly  afterwards  in  the  Polish  camp.  But  Sweden, 
though  often  belligerent  in  those  days,  was  not  so  always,  and,  in 
1672,  when  war  broke  forth  between  France  and  England  on  one 
side  and  the  Dutch  Provinces  on  the  other,  we  find  her  proffering 
a  Mediation,  which  was  promptly  accepted  by  England,  who  justly 
rejected  a  similar  proffer  which  the  Elector  of  Brandenburg, 
ancestor  of  the  kings  of  Prussia,  had  the  hardihood  to  make  while 
marching  at  the  head  of  his  forces  to  join  the  Dutch.  The 
English  notes  on  this  occasion,  written  in  what  at  the  time  was 
called  "  sufficiently  bad  French  but  in  most  intelligible  terms," 
declared  that  the  Electoral  proffer,  though  under  the  pleasant 
name  of  mediation,  (par  le  doux  nom  de  mediation,)  was  in  real 
ity  an  arbitration,  and  that,  instead  of  a  Mediation,  unarmed  and 
disinterested,  it  was  a  Mediation,  armed  and  pledged  to  the 
enemies  of  England.  (Wicquefort,  L'Ambassadeur,  Vol.  i. 
p.  135.) 

Such  are  some  of  the  earlier  instances,  all  of  which  have  their 
lesson  for  us.  But  there  are  modern  instances.  I  allude  only  to 
the  Triple  Alliance  between  Great  Britain,  Prussia  and  Holland, 
which,  at  the  close  of  the  last  century,  successively  intervened, 
by  a  Mediation,  which  could  not  be  resisted,  to  compel  Denmark — 


30 

which  had  sided  with  Russia  against  Sweden — to  remain  neutral  for 
the  rest  of  the  war;  then  in  1791  to  dictate  the  terms  of  peace 
between  Austria  and  the  Porte  ;  and  lastly  in  1792,  to  constrain 
Russia  into  an  abandonment  of  her  designs  upon  the  Turkish 
Empire,  by  the  peace  of  Jassey.  On  this  occasion  the  Empress 
of  Russia,  Catharine,  peremptorily  refused  the  Mediation  of 
Prussia  and  the  Mediating  Alliance  made  its  approaches  through 
Denmark,  hy  whose  good  offices  the  Empress  was  finally  induced 
to  consent  to  the  Treaty.  While  thus  engaged  in  a  work  of  pro 
fessed  Mediation,  England,  in  a  note  to  the  French  ambassador 
declined  a  proposition  to  act  as  Mediator  between  France  and  the 
Allied  Powers;  leaving  that  world-embracing  war  to  proceed.  But 
England  has  not  only  refused  to  act  as  Mediator  but  has  also  refused 
to  submit  to  a  mediation.  This  was  during  the  List  war  with  the 
United  Slates,  when  Russia,  at  that  time  the  ally  of  England, 
proffered  her  Mediation  between  the  two  belligerents,  which  was 
promptly  accepted  by  the  United  States.  Its  rejection  at  the 
time  by  England,  causing  the  prolongation  of  hostilities,  was 
considered  by  Sir  James  Mackintosh  less  justifiable,  as.  "a  medi 
ator  is  a  common  friend,  who  counsels  both  parties  with  a  weight 
proportioned  to  their  belief  in  his  integrity  and  their  respect  for 
his  power;  but  he  is  not  an  arbitrator  to  whose  decision  they  sub 
mit  their  differences  where  award  is  binding  on  them."  The 
peace  of  Ghent  was  concluded  at  last  under  Russian  Mediation. 
But  England  has  not  always  been  belligerent.  When  Andrew 
Jackson  menaced  letters  of  marque  against  France,  on  account  of 
a  failure  to  pay  a  sum  stipulated  in  a  recent  Treaty  with  the 
United  States,  King  William  IV.  proffered  his  Mediation  between 
the  two  Powers;  but  happily  the  whole  question  was  already 
arranged.  It  appears  also  that,  before  our  war  with  Mexico,  the 
good  offices  of  England  were  tendered  to  the  two  parties,  but 
neither  was  willing  to  accept  them,  and  war  took  its  course. 
Such  are  instances  of  interference  in  the  external  affairs  of 
nations,  and  since  International  Law  is  to  be  traced  in  history, 
they  furnish  a  guide  which  we  cannot  safely  neglect,  especially 
in  view  of  the  actual  policy  of  England  and  France. 

Intervention  in  Internal  Affairs. 

(2.)  But  the  instances  of  Foreign  Intervention  in  the  internal 
affairs  of  a  nation  are  more  pertinent  to  the  present  occasion. 
They  are  numerous  and  not  always  harmonious,  especially  if  we 
compare  the  new  with  the  old.  In  the  earlier  times  such  Inter 
vention  was  regarded  with  repugnance.  But  the  principle  then 
declared  has  been  sapped  on  the  one  side  by  the  conspiracies  of 
tyranny,  seeking  the  suppression  of  liberal  institutions,  and  on 
the  other  side,  by  a  generous  sympathy,  breaking  forth  in  support 
of  liberal  institutions.  According  to  the  old  precedents,  most  of 


31 

winch  will  bo  found  in  the  gossiping  book  of  Wicquefort,  from 
whence  they  have  been  copied  by  Mr.  Wildman,  even  Foreign 
Intercession  was  prohibited.  Not  even  in  the  name  of  charity 
could  one  ruler  speak  to  another  on  the  domestic  affairs  of  his 
government.  Peter,  King  of  Arrao;on,  refused  to  receive  an 
embassy  from  Alphonzo,  King  of  Castile,  entreating  mercy  for 
rebels.  Charles  IX.,  of  France,  a  detestable  monarch,  in  reply  to 
ambassadors  of  the  Protestant  princes  of  Germany,  pleading  lor  his 
Protestant  subjects,  insolently  said  that  he  required  no  tutors  to 
teach  him  how  to  rule.  And  yet  tbis  same  sovereign  did  not 
hesitate  to  ask  the  Duke  of  Savoy  to  receive  certain  subjects 
"into  his  Benign  favor  and  to  restore  and  re-establish  them  in 
their  confiscated  estates."  (Guizot's  Cromwell,  Vol.  ii.  p.  210.) 
In  this  appeal  there  was  a  double  inconsistency ;  for  it  was  not 
only  an  interference  in  the  affairs  of  another  Prince  but  it  was  in 
behalf  of  Protestants,  only  a  few  months  before  the  massacre  of 
St.  Bartholomew.  Henry  III.,  the  successor  of  Charles,  and  a 
detestable  monarch  also,  in  reply  to  the  Protestant  ambassadors, 
announced  that  he  was  a  sovereign  prince,  and  ordered  them  to 
leave  his  dominions.  Louis  XIII.  was  of  a  milder  nature,  and  yet 
when  the  English  ambassador,  the  Earl  of  Carlisle,  presumed  to 
speak  in  favor  of  the  Huguenots,  he  declared  that  no  interference 
between  the  King  of  France  and  his  subjects  could  be  approved. 
The  Cardinal  Richelieu,  who  governed  France  so  long,  learning 
that  an  attempt  was  made  to  procure  the  Intercession  of  the 
Pope  stopped  it  by  a  message  to  his  Holiness,  that  the  King  would 
be  displeased  by  any  such  interference.  The  Pope  himself,  on 
another  recorded  occasion,  admitted  that  it  would  be  a  pernicious 
precedent  to  allow  a  subject  to  negotiate  terms  of  accommodation 
through  a  foreign  Prince.  On  still  another  occasion,  when  the 
King  of  France,  forgetting  his  own  rule,  interposed  in  behalf  of  the 
Barberini  Family,  Innocent  X.  declared,  that  as  he  had  no  desire 
to  interfere  in  the  affairs  of  France,  he  trusted  that  his  Majesty 
would  not  interfere  in  his.  Queen  Christina  of  Sweden,  on 
merely  hinting  a  disposition  to  proffer  her  good  offices,  Jor  the 
settlement  of  the  unhappy  divisions  of  France,  was  told  by  the 
Queen  Regent,  that  she  might  give  herself  no  trouble  on  the 
subject,  and  one  of  her  own  Ministers  at  Stockholm  declared  that 
the  overture  had  been  properly  rejected.  Nor  were  the  States 
General  of  Holland  less  sensitive.  They  even  went  so  far  as  to 
refuse  audience  to  the  Spanish  ambassador,  seeking  to  congratu 
late  them  on  the  settlement  of  a  domestic  question,  and,  when 
the  French  ambassador  undertook  to  plead  for  the  Roman  Cath 
olics,  the  States  by  formal  resolution  denounced  his  conduct  as 
inconsistent  with  the  peace  and  constitution  of  the  Republic,  all 
of  which  was  communicated  to  him  by  eight  deputies  who  added 
by  word  of  mouth  whatever  the  resolution  seemed  to  want  in 
plainness  of  speech. 


32 

Nor  is  England  without  similar  examples.  Louis  XIII., 
shortly  afte**  the  marriage  of  his  sister  Henrietta  Maria  with 
Charles  I.,  consented  that  the  English  ambassador  should 
interpose  foi  the  French  Protestants;  but  when  the  French 
ambassador  in  England  requested  the  repeal  of  a  law  against 
Roman  Catholics,  Charles  expressed  his  surprise  that  the  King  of 
France  should  presume  to  intermeddle  in  English  affairs.  Even 
as  kte  as  1745,  when,  after  the  battle  of  Culloden,  the  Dutch 
ambassador  in  France  was  induced  to  address  the  British  Govern 
ment  in  behalf  of  Charles  Edward,  the  Pretender,  to  the  effect 
that  if  taken  he  should  not  be  treated  as  a  rebel,  it  is  recorded 
that  this  Intercession  Was  greatly  resented  by  the  British  Govern 
ment  which,  not  content  with  an  apology  from  the  unfortunate 
official,  required  that  he  should  be  rebuked  by  his  own  govern 
ment  also.  And  this  is  British  testimony  with  regard  to  Intervention 
in  a  civil  war,  even  when  it  took  the  mildest  form  of  Intercession 
for  the  life  of  a  prince. 

But  in  the  face  of  these  repulses,  all  these  nations  at  different 
times  have  practiced  Intervention  in  every  variety  of  form.  Some 
times  by  Intercession  or  "good  offices"  only,  sometimes  by 
Mediation,  and  often  by  arms.  Even  these  instances  attest  the 
intermeddling  spirit,  for  wherever  Intervention  was  thus  repulsed, 
it  was  at  least  attempted. 

But  there  are  two  precedents  belonging  to  the  earlier  period, 
which  deserve  to  stand  apart,  not  only  for  their  historic  impor 
tance,  but  for  their  applicability  to  our  times.  The  first  was  the 
effort  of  that  powerful  minister,  who  during  the  minority  of  Louis 
XIV.  swayed  France — Cardinal  Mazarin — to  institute  a  Mediation 
between  King  Charles  I.  and  his  Parliament.  The  civil  war  had 
already  been  waged  for  years  ;  good  men  on  each  side,  had  fallen, 
Falkland  fighting  for  the  King  and  Hampden  fighting  for  the  Par 
liament,  and  other  costliest  blood  had  been  shed  on  the  fields  of 
Worcester,  Edgehill,  Newbury,  Marston  Moor,  and  Naseby,  when 
the  ambitious  Cardinal,  wishing  to  serve  the  King,  according  to 
Clarendon,  promised"  to  press  the  parliament  so  imperiously,  and 
to  denounce  a  war  against  them,  if  they  refused  to  yield  what  was 
reasonable."  For  this  important  service  he  selected  the  famous 
Pomponne  de  Believre,  of  a  family  tried  in  public  duties — himself 
President  of  the  Parliament  of  Paris  and  a  peer  of  France — con 
spicuous  in  personal  qualities,  as  in  place,  whose  beautiful  head 
preserved  by  the  graver  of  Nanteuii  is  illustrious  in  art,  and  whose 
dying  charity  lives  still  in  the  great  hospital  of  the  Hotel  Dieu  at 
Paris.  On  his  arrival  at  London,  the  graceful  ambassador  pre 
sented  himself  to  that  Long  Parliament  which  knew  so  well  how 
to  guard  English  rights.  Every  overture  was  at  once  rejected,  by 
formal  proceedings,  from  which  I  copy  these  words :  "  We  do 
declare  that  we  ourselves  have  been  careful  on  all  occasions  to 
compose  these  unhappy  troubles,  yet  ive  have  not,  neither  can. 


33 

admit  of  any  Mediation  or  interposing  betwixt  the  King  and  us  by 
any  foreign  Prince  or  State;  and  we  desire  that  his  Majesty,  the 
French  King,  will  rest  satisfied  with  this  our  resolution  and 
answer.'*  On  the  committee  which  drew  this  reply  was  John 
Selden,  unsurpassed  for  learning  and  ability  in  the  whole  splendid 
history  of  the  English  bar,  on  every  book  of  whose  library  was 
written,  "  Before  every  thing,  Liberty  "  and  also  that  Harry  Vane 
whom  Milton,  in  one  of  his  most  inspired  sonnets,  addresses,  as 

"  Vane,  young  in  years,  but  in  sage  counsel  old, 
Than  whom  a  better  Senator  ne'er  held 
The  helm  of  Rome,  when  gowns  not  arms  repelled 
The  fierce  Epirot  and  the  African  bold." 

The  answer  of  such  men  may  well  be  a  precedent  to  us;  especially 
should  England,  taking  up  the  rejected  policy  of  Mazarin,  presume 
to  send  any  ambassador  to  stay  the  Republic  in  its  war  with 
Slavery. 

But  the  same  heart  of  oak,  which  was  so  strenuous  to  repel 
the  Intervention  of  France,  in  the  great  question  between  King 
and  Parliament,  was  not  less  strenuous  even  in  Intervention — when 
it  could  serve  the  rights  of  England  or  the  principles  of  religious 
liberty.  Such  was  England  when  ruled  by  the  great  Protector, 
called  in  his  own  day  "  chief  of  men.'7  No  nation  so  powerful 
as  to  be  exempt  from  that  irresistible  intercession,  where  beneath 
the  garb  of  peace  there  was  a  gleam  of  arms.  From  France, 
even  under  the  rule  of  Mazarin,  he  claimed  respect  for  the 
Protestant  name,  which  he  insisted  upon  making  great  and 
glorious.  From  Spain,  on  whose  extended  empire  the  sun  at 
that  time  never  ceased  to  shine,  he  insisted  that  no  Englishman 
should  be  subject  to  the  Inquisition.  Reading  to  his  council  a 
despatch  from  Admiral  Blake,  announcing  that  he  had  obtained 
justice  from  the  Viceroy  of  Malaga,  Cromwell  said  "  that  he 
hoped  to  make  the  name  of  Englishman  as  great  as  ever  that  of 
Roman  had  been."  In  this  same  lofty  mood  he  turned  to  propose 
his  Mediation  between  Protestant  Sweden  and  Protestant  Bremen, 
"  chiefly  bewailing  that  being  both  his  friends  they  should  so 
despitefully  combat  one  against  another  ;"  "  offering  his  assistance 
to  a  commodious  accommodation  on  both  sides,"  and  "  exhorting 
them  by  no  means  to  refuse  any  honest  conditions  of  reconcili 
ation." — (Milton's  Prose  Works,  Vol.  vi.  p.  315,  16.)  Here  was 
Intervention  between  nation  and  nation  ;  but  it  was  soon  followed 
by  an  Intervention  in  the  internal  affairs  of  a  distant  country, 
which  of  all  the  acts  of  Cromwell  is  the  most  touching  and 
sublime.  The  French  ambassador  was  at  Whitehall  urging  the 
signature  of  a  treaty,  when  news  unexpectedly  came  from  a 
secluded  valley  of  the  Alps — far  away  among  those  mountain 
torrents  which  are  the  affluents  of  the  Po — that  a  company  of 
pious  Protestants,  who  had  been  for  centuries  gathered  there, 

3 


34 

where  they  kept  the  truth  pure  "  when  our  fathers  worshipped 
stocks  and  stones,"  were  now  suffering  terrible  persecution  from 
their  sovereign,  Emanuel  of  Savoy  ;  that  they  had  been  despoiled 
of  all  possessions  and  liberties,  brutally  driven  from  their  homes, 
given  over  to  a  licentious  and  infuriate  violence,  and  that  when 
they  turned  in  self-defence,  they  had  been  "  slain  by  the  bloody 
Piemontese,  that  rolled  mother  with  infant  down  the  rocks  ;  "  and 
it  was  reported  that  French  troops  took  part  in  this  dismal 
transaction.  The  Protector  heard  the  story,  and  his  pity  flashed 
into  anger.  He  declined  to  sign  the  treaty  until  France  united 
with  him  in  securing  justice  to  these  humble  sufferers,  whom  he 
called  the  Lord's  people.  For  their  relief  he  contributed  out  of 
his  own  purse  £2,000,  and  authorized  a  general  collection  through 
out  England,  which  reached  to  a  large  sum ;  but,  besides  giving 
money,  he  set  apart  a  day  of  Humiliation  and  Prayer  for  them. 
Nor  was  this  all.  "  I  should  be  glad,"  wrote  his  Secretary, 
Thurloe,  "  to  have  a  most  particular  account  of  that  business, 
and  to  know  what  has  become  of  these  poor  people,  for  whom  our 
very  souls  here  do  bleed." — (Vaughari's  Protectorate,  Vol.  i.  p. 
177.)  But  a  mightier  pen  than  that  of  any  plodding  secretary 
was  enlisted  in  this  pious  Intervention.  It  was  John  Milton, 
glowing  with  that  indignation  which  his  sonnet  on  the  massacre 
in  Piemont  has  made  immortal  in  the  heart  of  man,  who  wrote 
the  magnificent  despatches,  in  which  the  English  nation  of  that  day 
after  declaring  itself  "  linked  together  with  its  distant  brethren, 
not  only  by  the  same  type  of  humanity,  but  by  joint  communion 
of  the  same  religion,"  naturally  and  gloriously  insisted  that 
"whatever  had  been  decreed  to  their  disturbance  on  account  of 
the  Reformed  Religion  should  be  abrogated,  and  that  an  end  be 
put  to  their  oppressions."  But  not  content  with  this  call  upon 
the  Prince  of  Savoy,  the  Protector  appealed  to  Louis  XIV.  and 
also  to  his  Cardinal  Minister;  to  the  States  General  of  Holland  ; 
to  the  Protestant  Cantons  of  Switzerland ;  to  the  King  of  Denmark ; 
to  Gustavus  Adolphus,  and  even  to  the  Protestant  Unitarian 
Prince  of  remote  Transylvania  ;  and  always  by  the  pen  of  Milton 
— rallying  these  Princes  and  Powers  in  joint  intreaty  and  inter 
vention  and  "  if  need  be  to  some  other  speedy  course,  that  such  a 
numerous  multitude  of  our  innocent  brethren  may  not  miserably 
perish  for  want  of  succor  and  assistance."  The  regent  of  Savoy, 
who  was  the  daughter  of  Henry  IV.,  professed  to  be  affected  by  this 
English  charity,  and  announced  for  her  Protestant  subjects  "  a  free 
pardon,  and  also  such  privileges  and  graces  as  cannot  but  give 
the  Lord  Protector  a  sufficient  evidence  of  the  great  respect  borne 
both  to  his  person  and  Mediation" — {GuizoCs  History  of  Crom 
well,  Vol.  ii.  p.  211-19;  Milton's  Prose  Works,  Vol.  vi.  p.  818-87.) 
But  there  was  still  delay.  Meanwhile  Cromwell  began  to  inquire 
where  English  troops  might  debark  in  the  Prince's  territories, 
and  Mazarin,  anxious  to  complete  the  yet  unfinished  Treaty  with 


35 

England,  joined  in  requiring  an  immediate  pacification  in  the 
valleys  and  the  restoration  of  these  persecuted  people  to  their 
ancient  liberties.  It  was  done.  Such  is  the  grandest  Intervention 
of  English  history,  inspired  by  Milton,  enforced  by  Cromwell,  and 
sustained  by  Louis  XIV.,  with  his  Cardinal  minister  by  his  side, 
while  foreign  nations  watched  the  scene. 

But  this  great  instance,  constituting  an  inseparable  part  of 
the  glory  of  the  Protector,  is  not  the  last  occasion  on  which  Eng 
land  intervened  in  behalf  of  the  liberties  of  Protestants.  Troubles 
began  in  France  with  the  revocation  of  the  edict  of  Nantes ;  but 
these  broke  forth  in  the  rebellion  of  the  Camisards,  smarting 
under  the  revocation.  Sheltered  by  the  mountains  of  the  Ce- 
vennes,  and  nerved  by  their  good  cause,  with  the  device,  "  Liberty 
of  Conscience  "  on  their  standards,  they  made  head  against  two 
successive  Marshals  of  France,  and  perplexed  the  old  age  of  Louis 
XI V.,  whose  arms  were  already  enfeebled  by  foreign  war.  At 
last,  through  the  Mediation  of  England,  the  great  monarch  made 
terms  with  his  Protestant  rebels,  and  the  civil  war  was  ended. 
(Merlin,  article,  Minislre.*) 

Intervention,  more  often  armed  than  unarmed,  showed  itself  in 
the  middle  of  the  last  century.  All  decency  was  set  aside  when 
Frederick  of  Prussia,  Catharine  of  Russia,  and  Maria  Theresa  of 
Austria,  invaded  and  partitioned  Poland,  under  the  pretext  of 
suppressing  anarchy.  Here  was  Intervention  with  a  vengeance, 
and  on  the  side  of  arbitrary  power.  But  such  is  human  incon 
sistency,  there  was  almost  at  the  same  time,  another  Intervention 
in  the  opposite  direction.  It  was  the  Armed  Intervention  of 
France,  followed  by  that  of  Spain  and  Holland,  in  behalf  of 
American  Independence.  But  Spain  began  Intervention  here  by  an 
offer  of  Mediation,  with  a  truce,  which  was  accepted  by  France  on 
condition  that  meanwhile  the  United  States  should  be  independent 
in  fact.  (Martens  Nouvelles  Causes  Celebres,  Yol.  i.  p.  434.) 
Then  came,  in  1788,  the  Armed  Intervention  of  Prussia,  to  sustain 
an  illiberal  faction  in  Holland,  which  was  followed  afterwards  by  the 
compact  between  Great  Britain,  Prussia,  and  Holland,  known  as 
the  Triple  Alliance,  which  began  the  business  of  its  copartnership 
by  an  Armed  Intervention  to  reconcile  the  insurgent  provinces  of 
Belgium  to  the  German  Emperor  and  their  ancient  Constitution. 
As  France  began  to  be  shaken  by  domestic  troubles,  Mediation  in 
her  affairs  was  occasionally  proposed.  Among  the  papers  of 
Burke  is  a  draft  of  a  Memorial  written  in  1791,  in  the  name  of 
the  Government,  offering  what  he  calls  "  this  healing  mediation." 
Then  came  the  vast  coalition  for  Armed  Intervention  in  France  to 
put  down  the  Republic.  But  even  this  dreary  cloud  was  for  a 
moment  brightened  by  a  British  attempt  in  Parliament,  through 
successive  debates,  to  institute  an  Intercession  for  Lafayette, 
immured  in  the  dungeons  of  European  despotism.  "It  is 
reported,"  said  one  of  the  orators,  "  that  America  has  solicited 


36 

the  liberation  of  her  unfortunate  adopted  fellow-citizen.  Let 
British  magnanimity  be  called  in  aid  of  American  gratitude,  and 
exhibit  to  mankind  a  noble  proof,  that  wherever  the  principles  of 
genuine  liberty  prevail,  they  never  fail  to  inspire  sentiments  of 
generosity,  fee  I  ings  of  humanity,  and  a  detestation  of  oppression  " 
(Parliamentary  History,  Yol.  xxxi.  p.  38 ;  Vol.  xxxii.  p.  1348.) 

Meanwhile  France,  against  which  all  Europe  intervened,  played 
her  part  of  Intervention,  and  the  scene  was  Switzerland.  In  the 
unhappy  disputes  between  the  aristocratic  and  democratic  par 
ties,  by  which  this  Republic  had  been  distracted,  French  Mediation 
had  already  become  chronic,  beginning  in  1738,  when  it  found  a 
partial  apology  in  the  invitation  of  several  of  the  Cantons  and  of 
the  government  of  Geneva ;  occurring  again  in  1768,  and  again 
in  1782.  The  mountain  Republic,  breathing  the  air  of  Freedom, 
was  naturally  moved  .by  the  convulsions  of  the  French  Revolu 
tion.  Civil  war  ensued,  and  grew  in  bitterness.  At  last,  when 
France  herself  was  composed  under  the  powerful  arm  of  the  First 
Consul,  we  find  him  turning  to  compose  the  troubles  of  Switzer 
land.  He  was  a  military  ruler,  and  always  acted  under  the 
instincts  of  military  power.  By  an  address,  dated  at  the  palace 
of  St.  Cloud,  Bonaparte  declared  that,  already  for  three  years  the 
Swiss  had  been  slaying  each  other,  and  that,  if  left  to  themselves, 
they  would  continue  to  slay  each  other  for  three  years  more, 
without  coming  to  any  understanding;  that,  at  first,  he  had 
resolved  not  to  interfere  in  their  affairs,  but  that  he  now  changed 
his  mind,  and  announced  himself  as  the  Mediator  of  their  diffi 
culties,  proclaiming,  confidently,  that  his  Mediation  would  be 
efficacious  as  became  the  great  people  in  whose  name  he  spoke. 
(  Garden  Histoire  des  Traites  de  Paix,  Yol.  viii.  p.  21.)  Deputies 
from  the  Cantons,  together  with  all  the  chief  citizens,  were  sum 
moned  to  Paris,  in  order  to  declare  the  means  of  restoring  the 
union,  securing  peace  and  reconciling  all  parties.  Of  course, 
this  was  Armed  Mediation;  but  Switzerland  was  weak  and  France 
was  strong,  while  the  declared  object  was  union,  peace  and  recon 
ciliation.  I  know  not  if  all  this  was  accomplished,  but  the  civil 
war  was  stifled,  and  the  constitution  was  established  by  what  is 
entitled  in  history,  the  Act  of  Mediation. 

From  that  period  down  to  the  present  moment,  Intervention  in 
the  internal  affairs  of  other  nations  has  been  a  prevailing  practice, 
now  cautiously  and  peaceably ;  now  offensively  and  forcibly. 
Sometimes  it  was  against  the  rights  of  men  ;  sometimes  it  was  in 
their  favor.  Sometimes  England  and  France  stood  aloof;  some 
times  they  took  part.  The  Congress  of  Vienna,  which  undertook 
to  settle  the  map  of  Europe,  organized  a  universal  and  perpetual 
Intervention  in  the  interest  of  monarchical  institutions  and  exist 
ing  dynasties.  This  compact  was  renewed  at  the  Congress  of 
Aix  la  Chapelle,  in  1818,  with  the  explanatory  declaration  that 
the  five  great  Powers  would  never  assume  jurisdiction  over  ques- 


37 

tions  concerning  the  rights  and  interests  of  another  Power,  except 
at  its  request  and  without  inviting  such  Power  to  take  part  in  the 
conference.  But  this  concession  was  obviously  adverse  to  any 
liberal  movement.  Meanwhile  the  Holy  Alliance  was  formed 
specially  to  watch  and  control  the  revolutionary  tendencies  of  the 
age  ;  but  into  this  combination  England,  to  her  honor,  declined 
to  enter.  The  other  Powers  were  sufficiently  active.  Austria, 
Russia  and  Prussia,  did  not  hesitate  at  the  Congress  of  Laybacli, 
in  1840,  to  institute  an  Armed  Intervention  for  the  suppression  of 
liberal  principles  in  Naples ;  and  again  two  years  later,  at  the 
Congress  of  Verona,  these  same  Powers,  together  with  France, 
instituted  another  Armed  Intervention  to  suppress  liberal  princi 
ples  in  Spain,  which  ultimately  led  to  the  invasion  of  that  king 
dom  and  the  overthrow  of  its  constitution.  France  was  the  bellig 
erent  agent,  and  would  not  be  turned  aside,  although  the  Duke 
of  Wellington  at  Verona  and  Mr.  Canning  at  home,  sought  to 
arrest  her  armies  by  the  Mediation  of  Great  Britain,  which  Medi 
ation  was  directly  sought  by  Spain  and  directly  refused  by  France. 
The  British  Government,  in  admirable  letters,  composed  with 
unsurpassed  skill  and  constituting  a  noble  page  of  International 
Law,  disclaimed  for  itself  and  denied  to  other  Powers  the  right 
to  require  changes  in  the  internal  institutions  of  Independent 
States,  with  the  menace  of  hostile  attack  in  case  of  refusal;  and 
it  bravely  declared  to  the  Imperial  and  Royal  Interventionists, 
that  u  so  long  as  the  struggles  and  disturbances  of  Spain  should 
be  confined  ^ithin  the  circle  of  her  own  territory,  they  could  not 
be  admitted  by  the  British  Government  to  afford  any  plea  for 
foreign  interference,"  and  in  still  another  note  it  repeated  that 
"  a  menace  of  direct  and  imminent  danger  could  a/one,  in  excep 
tion  to  the  general  rule,  justify  foreign  interference"  (Philli- 
more's  International  Law,  Vol.  iii.  pp.  757-66.)  These  were  the 
words  of  Mr.  Canning;  but  even  Lord  Castlereagh,  in  an  earlier 
note,  had  asserted  the  same  limitation,  which  at  a  later  day  had 
the  unqualified  support  of  Lord  Grey  and  also  of  Lord  Aberdeen. 
Justly  interpreted  they  leave  no  apology  for  Armed  Intervention 
except  in  a  case  of  direct  and  imminent  danger,  when  a  nation, 
like  an  individual,  may  be  thrown  upon  the  great  right  of  self- 
defence. 

But  Great  Britain  bore  testimony  by  what  she  did,  as  well  as 
by  what  she  refused  to  do.  Even  while  resisting  the  Armed  Inter 
vention  of  the  great  conspiracy,  her  Government  intervened  some 
times  by  Mediation  and  sometimes  by  arms.  Early  in  the  contest 
between  Spain  and  her  Colonies,  she  consented  on  the  invitation 
of  Spain  to  act  as  Mediator,  in  the  hope  of  effecting  a  reconcilia 
tion  ;  but  Spain  declined  the  Mediation  which  sho  had  invited. 
From  1812  to  1828  Great  Britain  constantly  repeated  her  offer. 
In  the  case  of  Portugal  ^he  went  further.  Under  the  counsels  of 
Mr.  Canning,  whose  speech  on  the  occasion  was  of  the  most 


38 

memorable  character,  she  intervened  by  landing  troops  at  Lisbon  ; 
but  this  Intervention  was  vindicated  by  the  obligations  of  treaty. 
Next  came  the  greater  instance  of  Greece,  when  the  Christian 
Powers  of  Europe  intervened  to  arrest  a  protracted  struggle  and 
to  save  this  classic  land  from  Turkish  tyranny.  Here  the  first 
step  was  a  pressing'  invitation  from  the  Greeks  to  the  British  and 
French  governments  for  their  Mediation  with  the  Ottoman  Porte. 
These  Powers  together  with  Russia  proffered  the  much  desired 
Intervention,  which  the  Greeks  at  once  accepted  and  the  Turks 
rejected.  Battle  had  already  raged  fiercely,  accompanied  by  bar 
barous  massacre.  Without  delay,  the  Allied  forces  were  directed 
to  compel  the  cessation  of  hostilities,  which  was  accomplished  by 
the  destruction  of  the  Turkish  fleet  at  Navarino  and  the  occu 
pation  of  the  Morea  by  French  troops.  At  last,  under  the 
continued  Mediation  of  these  Powers,  the  independence  of  Greece 
was  recognized  by  the  Ottoman  Porte,  and  another  Free  State, 
consecrated  to  Freedom,  took  its  place  in  the  Family  of  Nations, 
But  Mediation  in  Turkish  affairs  did  not  stop  here.  The  example 
of  Greece  was  followed  by  Egypt,  whose  provincial  chief  Mehemet 
Ali  rebelled,  and,  by  a  genius  for  war,  succeeded  in  dispossessing 
the  Ottoman  Porte  not  only  of  Egypt,  but  of  other  possessions 
also.  This  civil  war  was  first  arrested  by  temporary  arrangement 
at  Kutoyah  in  1883,  under  the  Mediation  of  Great  Britain  and 
France,  and,  finally  ended  by  an  Armed  Mediation  in  1840,  when, 
after  elaborate  and  irritating  discussions,  which  threatened  to 
involve  Europe,  a  Treaty  was  concluded  at  London  l&tween  Great 
Britain,  Russia,  Austria  and  Prussia,  by  which  the  Pacha  was 
compelled  to  relinquish  some  of  his  conquests,  while  he  was 
secured  in  the  government  of  Egypt,  as  a  perpetual  vassal  of  the 
Porte.  France  dissatisfied  with  the  terms  of  this  adjustment  stood 
aloof  from  the  Treaty,  which  found  its  apology,  such  as  it  had, 
first,  in  the  invitation  of  the  Sultan  and  secondly,  in  the  desire 
to  preserve  the  integrity  of  the  Turkish  empire  as  essential  to  the 
balance  of  power  and  the  peace  of  Europe  ;  to  which  reasons  may 
also  be  added  the  desire  to  stop  the  effusion  of  blood. 

Even  before  the  Eastern  questions  were  settled,  other  compli 
cations  had  commenced  in  Western  Europe.  Belgium,  restless 
from  the  French  Revolution  of  1830,  rose  against  the  House  of 
Orange  and  claimed  her  Independence.  Civil  war  ensued  ;  but 
the  Great  Powers  promptly  intervened,  even  to  the  extent  of 
arresting  a  Dutch  army  on  its  march.  Beginning  with  an  armis 
tice,  there  was  a  long  and  fine-spun  negotiation,  which,  assuming 
the  guise  alternately  of  a  pacific  Mediation  and  of  an  Armed  In 
tervention,  ended  at  last  in  the  established  separation  of  Belgium 
from  Holland,  and  its  Recognition  as  an  Independent  Nation.  Do 
you  ask  why  Great  Britain  intervened  on  this  occasion  ?  Lord 
John  Russell,  in  the  course  of  debate  at  a  subsequent  day,  declared 
that  a  special  motive  was  "  the  establishment  of  a  free  constitu- 


39 

tion."  (Hansard's  Parliamentary  Debates,  3d  series,  Vol.  xciii.  p. 
417-66 — House  of  Commons,  July  11,1847.)  Meanwhile  the  penin 
sula  of  Spain  and  Portugal  was  torn  by  civil  war.  The  regents  of 
these  two  kingdoms  respectively  appealed  to  Great  Britain  and 
Prance  for  aid,  especially  in  the  expulsion  of  the  pretender  Don 
Carlos  from  Spain,  and  the  pretender  Don  Miguel  from  Portugal. 
For  this  purpose  the  Quadruple  Alliance  of  these  Powers  was 
formed  in  1834.  The  moral  support  derived  from  this  Treaty  is 
said  to  have  been  important ;  but  Great  Britain  was  compelled  to 
provide  troops.  This  Intervention,  however,  was  at  the  solicita 
tion  of  the  actual  governments.  Even  after  the  Spanish  troubles 
were  settled  the  war  still  lingered  in  the  sister  kingdom,  when  in 
1847,  the  Queen  appealed  to  Great  Britain,  the  ancient  patron  of 
Portugal,  to  mediate  between  herself  and  her  insurgent  subjects, 
and  the  task  was  accepted,  in  the  declared  hope  of  composing  the 
difficulties  in  a  just  and  permanent  manner  "  with  all  due  regard 
to  the  dignity  of  the  Crown  on  the  one  hand  and  the  Constitu 
tional  liberties  of  the  Nation  on  the  other. "  The  insurgents  did 
riot  submit  until  after  military  demonstrations.  But  peace  and 
liberty  were  the  two  watchwords  here. 

Then  occurred  the  European  uprising  of  1848.  France  was 
once  more  a  Republic;  but  Europe  wiser  grown  did  not  interfere 
in  her  affairs,  even  so  much  as  to  write  a  letter.  But  the  case 
was  different  with  Hungary,  whose  victorious  armies,  radiant  with 
liberty  regained,  expelled  the  Austrian  power  only  to  be  arrested 
by  the  Armed  Intervention  of  the  Russian  Czar,  who  yielded  to  the 
double  pressure  of  an  invitation  from  Austria  and  a  fear  that  suc 
cessful  insurrection  might  extend  into  Poland.  It  was  left  for 
France  at  the  same  time  in  another  country,  with  a  strange  incon 
sistency,  to  play  the  part  which  Russia  had  played  in  Hungary. 
Rome,  which  had  risen  against  the  temporal  power  of  the  Pope, 
and  proclaimed  the  Republic,  was  occupied  by  a  French  army, 
which  expelled  the  republican  magistrates,  and,  though  fifteen 
years  have  already  passed  since  that  unhappy  act,  the  occupation 
still  continues.  From  this  military  Intervention  Great  Britain 
stood  aloof.  In  a  despatch,  dated  at  London  January  28, 1849, 
Lord  Palmerston  has  made  a  permanent  record  to  the  honor  of  his 
country.  His  words  are  as  follows :  "  Her  Majesty's  Government 
would  upon  every  account,  and  not  only  upon  abstract  principle, 
but  with  reference  to  the  general  interests  of  Europe,  and  from 
the  value  which  they  attach  to  the  maintenance  of  peace,  sincerely 
deprecate  any  attempt  to  settle  the  differences  between  the  Pope 
and  his  subjects  by  the  military  interference  of  foreign  Powers" 
(Phillimore,  International  Law,  Vol.  ii.  p.  676.)  But  he  gave 
further  point  to  the  whole  position  of  Great  Britain,  in  contrast 
with  France,  when  he  said,  "  Armed  Intervention  to  assist  in  retain 
ing-  a  bad  government  would  be  unjustijialde"  (Ibid,  448.)  Such 
was  the  declaration  of  the  Lord  Palmerston  of  that  day.  But 


40 

how  much  more  unjustifiable  must  be  assistance  to  found  a  bad 
government,  as  is  now  proposed.  The  British  Minister  insisted 
that  the  differences  should  be  accommodated  by  "  the  diplomatic 
interposition  of  friendly  Powers,"  which  he  declared  a  much  better 
mode  of  settlement  than  an  authoritative  imposition  of  terms  by 
foreign  arms.  In  harmony  with  this  policy  Great  Britain  during 
this  same  year  united  with  France  in  proffering  Mediation  between 
the  insurgent  Sicilians  and  the  King  of  Naples,  the  notorious 
Bomba,  in  the  hope  of  helping  the  cause  of  good  government  and 
liberal  principles.  Not  disheartened  by  rebuff,  these  two  govern 
ments  in  1856  united  in  a  friendly  remonstrance  to  the  same 
tyrannical  sovereign  against  the  harsh  system  of  political  arrests 
which  he  maintained,  and  against  his  cruelty  to  good  citizens  thrust 
without  any  trial  into  the  worst  of  prisons.  The  advice  was 
indignantly  rejected,  and  the  two  governments  that  gave  it  at 
once  withdrew  their  Ministers  from  Naples.  The  sympathy  of 
Russia  was  on  the  wrong  side,  and  Prince  Gortschakolf,  while 
admitting  that  "  as  a  consequence  of  friendly  forethought,  one 
government  might  give  advice  to  another,"  declared  in  a  circular 
that  "  to  endeavor  by  threats  or  a  menacing  demonstration,  Jo 
obtain  from  the  King  of  Naples  concessions  in  the  internal  affairs 
of  his  government,  is  a  violent  usurpation  of  his  authority,  and 
an  open  declaration  of  the  strong  over  the  weak."  This  was 
practically  answered  by  Lord  Clarendon,  speaking  for  Great  Brit 
ain  at  the  Congress  of  Paris,  when,  admitting  the  principle  that 
no  government  has  the  right  to  intervene  in  the  internal  affairs  of 
other  nations,  he  declared  that  there  were  cases  where  an  excep 
tion  to  this  rule  becomes  equally  a  right  and  a  duty  ;  that  peace 
must  not  be  broken,  but  that  there  was  no  peace  without  justice, 
and  that,  therefore,  the  Congress  must  let  the  King  of  Naples 
know  its  desire  for  an  amelioration  of  his  vsystem  of  government, 
and  must  demand  of  him  an  amnesty  for  political  offenders  suffer 
ing  without  a  trial.  This  language  was  bold  beyond  the  practice 
of  diplomacy ;  but  the  Intervention  which  it  proposed  was  on  the 
side  of  humanity. 

But  I  must  draw  this  part  of  the  discussion  to  a  close,  although 
the  long  list  of  instances  is  not  yet  exhausted.  Even  while  I 
speak,  we  hear  of  Intervention  by  England  and  France,  in  the 
civil  war  between  the  Emperor  of  China  and  his  subjects  ;  and 
al^o  in  that  other  war  between  the  Emperor  of  Russia  on  the  one 
side  and  the  Poles  whom  he  claims  as  subjects  on  the  other  side  ; 
but  with  this  difference,  that,  in  China  these  Powers  have  taken 
the  part  of  the  existing  government,  while  in  Poland  they  have 
intervened  against  the  existing  government.  In  the  face  of  posi 
tive  declarations  of  neutrality  the  British  and  French  Admirals 
have  united  their  forces  with  the  Chinese  ;  but  thus  far  in  Poland 
although  there  has  been  no  declaration  of  neutrality,  the  Inter 
vention  has  been  unarmed.  In  both  these  instances  we  witness 


41 

the  same  tendency,  directed,  it  may  be,  by  the  interests  or  preju 
dices  of  the  time,  and  so  far  as  it  has  yet  proceeded,  it  is  at  least 
in  Poland  on  the  side  of  liberal  institutions.  But  alas !  for 
human  consistency — the  French  Emperor  is  now  intervening  in 
Mexico  with  armies  and  navies,  to  build  a  throne  for  an  Austrian 
Archduke. 

British  Intervention  against  Slavery. 

But  there  is  one  long-continued  Intervention  by  Great  Britain, 
which  speaks  now  with  controlling  power  ;  and  it  is  on  this  ac 
count  that  I  have  reserved  it  for  the  close  of  what  I  have  to  say 
on  this  head.  Though  not  without  original  shades  of  dark,  it  has 
for  more  than  half  a  century  been  a  shining  example  to  the  civil 
ized  world.  I  refer  to  that  Intervention  against  Slavery,  which 
from  its  first  adoption  has  been  so  constant  and  brilliant  as  to 
make  us  forget  the  earlier  Intervention  for  Slavery,  when,  for 
instance,  Great  Britain  at  the  peace  of  Utrecht  intervened  to  ex 
tort  the  detestable  privilege  of  supplying  slaves  to  Spanish  Amer 
ica  at  the  rate  of  4,800  yearly  for  the  space  of  thirty  years,  and 
then  again  at  the  peace  of  Aix  la  Chapelle  higgled  for  a  yet  longer 
sanction  to  this  ignoble  Intervention  ;  nay  it  almost  makes  us 
forget  the  kindred  Intervention,  at  once  most  sordid  and  criminal, 
by  which  this  Power  counteracted  all  efforts  for  the  prohibition  of 
the  slave-trade  even  in  its  own  colonies,  and  thus  helped  to  fasten 
Slavery  upon  Virginia  and  Carolina.  The  abolition  of  the  slave- 
trade  by  act  of  Parliament  in  1807  was  the  signal  for  a  change  of 
history. 

But  curiously,  it  was  the  whites  who  gained  the  first  fruits  of 
this  change  by  a  triumphant  Intervention  for  the  suppression  of 
White  Slavery  in  the  Barbary  States.  The  old  hero  of  Acre, 
Sir  Sidney  Smith,  released  from  his  long  imprisonment  in  France, 
sought  to  organize  a  "  holy  league  "  i'or  this  Intervention  ;  the 
subject  was  discussed  at  the  Congress  of  Vienna  ;  and  the  agents 
of  Spain  and  Portugal,  anxious  for  the  punishment  of  their  pirat 
ical  neighbors  argued  that,  because  Great  Britain  had  abolished 
for  itself  the  traffic  in  African  slaves,  therefore  it  must  see  that 
whites  were  no  longer  enslaved  in  the  Barbary  States.  The  argu 
ment  was  less  logical  than  humane.  But  Great  Britain  under 
took  the  work.  With  a  fleet  complete  at  all  points,  consisting  of 
five  line-of-battle  ships,  five  heavy  frigates,  four  bomb-vessels,  arid 
five  gun-brigs,  Lord  Exmouth  approached  Algiers,  where  he  was 
joined  by  a  considerable  Dutch  fleet,  anxious  to  take  part  in  this 
Intervention.  "  If  force  must  be  resorted  to"  said  the  Admiral 
in  his  General  Orders,  "  we  have  the  consolation  of  knowing  that 
we  fight  in  the  sacred  cause  of  humanity  and  cannot  fail  of  suc 
cess."  A  single  day  was  enough — with  such  a  force  in  such  a 
cause.  The  iormidable  castles  of  the  great  Slave-monger  were 


42 

battered  to  pieces,  and  he  was  compelled  to  sign  a  Treaty,  con 
firmed  under  a  salute  of  twenty-one  guns,  which  in  its  first 
article  stipulated  "  The  Abolition  of  Christian  Slavery  forever." 
Glorious  and  beneficent  Intervention ! — Not  inferior  to  that  re 
nowned  instance  of  antiquity,  where  the  Carthaginians  were 
required  to  abolish  the  practice  of  sacrificing  their  own  children  ; 
a  Treaty  which  has  been  called  the  noblest  of  history,  because  it 
was  stipulated  in  favor  of  human  nature.  The  Admiral,  who 
had  thus  triumphed,  was  hailed  as  an  Emancipator.  He  received 
a  new  rank  in  the  peerage,  and  a  new  blazonry  on  his  coat  of 
arms.  The  rank  is  of  course  continued  in  his  family,  and  on 
their  shield,  in  perpetual  memory  of  this  great  transaction,  is  still 
borne  a  Christian  slave  holding  aloft  the  cross  and  dropping  his 
broken  fetters.  But  the  personal  satisfactions  of  the  Admiral 
were  more  than  rank  or  heraldry.  In  his  despatch  to  the  Gov 
ernment,  describing  the  battle  and  written  at  the  time,  he  says : 
"  To  have  been  one  of  the  humble  instruments  in  the  hands  of 
Divine  Providence  for  bringing  to  reason  a  ferocious  government 
and  destroying  forever  the  insufferable  and  horrid  system  of 
Christian  Slavery,  can  never  cease  to  be  a  source  of  delight  and 
heartfelt  comfort  to  every  individual  happy  enough  to  be  employed 
in  it."  (Osiers  Life  of  Exmouth,  pp.  297,  334,  432.) 

But  I  have  said  too  much  with  regard  to  an  instance,  which, 
though  beautiful  and  important,  may  be  regarded  only  as  a  paren 
thesis  in  the  grander  and  more  extensive  Intervention  against 
African  Slavery,  which  was  already  organizing,  destined  at  last  to 
embrace-  the  whole  Human  Family.  Even  before  Wilberforce 
triumphed  in  Parliament,  Great  Britain  intervened  with  Napo 
leon,  in  180(>,  to  induce  him  to  join  in  the  abolition  of  the  slave- 
trade  ;  but  he  flatly  refused.  What  France  would  not  then  yield, 
was  extorted  from  Portugal  in  1810 ;  from  Sweden  shortly  after 
wards;  and  from  Denmark  in  1814.  An  ineffectual  attempt  was 
made  to  enlist  Spain,  even  by  the  temptation  of  pecuniary  subsi 
dies  ;  and  also  to  enlist  the  restored  monarch  of  France*,  Louis 
XVIII.  even  by  the  offer  of  a  sum  of  money  outright  or  the 
cession  of  a  West  India  Island,  in  consideration  of  the  desired 
abolition.  Had  gratitude  to  a  benefactor  prevailed,  these  Powers 
could  not  have  resisted  ;  but  it  was  confessed  by  Lord  Castlereagh, 
in  the  House  of  Commons,  that  there  was  a  distrust  of  the  Brit 
ish  Government  "  even  among  the  better  classes  of  people,"  who 
thought  that  its  zeal  in  this  behalf  was  prompted  by  a  desire  to 
injure  the  French  Colonies  and  commerce,  rather  than  by  benevo 
lence.  But  the  British  Minister  was  more  successful  with  Portugal, 
which  was  induced,  by  pecuniary  equivalents,  to  execute  a  Supple 
mentary  Treaty  in  January,  1815.  This  was  followed  by  the  de 
claration  of  the  Congress  of  Vienna,  on  motion  of  Lord  Casllereagh, 
15th  February,  1815,  denouncing  the  African  slave-trade  "  as 
inconsistent  with  the  principles  of  humanity  and  universal  benev- 


43 

olence."  Meanwhile  Napoleon  returned  from  Elba,  and  what  the 
British  Intervention  failed  to  accomplish  with  the  Bourbon  Mon 
arch,  and  what  the  Emperor  had  once  flatly  refused,  was  now 
spontaneously  done  by  him,  doubtless  in  the  hope  of  conciliat 
ing  British  sentiment.  His  hundred  days  of  power  were  signal 
ized  by  an  ordinance  abolishing  the  slave-trade  in  France  and  her 
colonies.  Louis  XVIII.  once  again  restored  by  British  arms  and 
with  the  shadow  of  Waterloo  upon  France,  could  not  do  less  than 
ratify  this  imperial  ordinance  by  a  royal  assurance  that  M  the 
traffic  was  henceforth  forever  forbidden  to  all  the  subjects  of  his 
most  Christian  Majesty."  Holland  came  under  the  same  influ 
ence  and  accepted  the  restitution  of  her  colonies,  except  the  Cape 
of  Good  Hope  and  Guiana,  on  condition  of  the  entire  abolition  of 
the  slave-trade  in  the  restored  colonies  and  also  everywhere  else 
beneath  her  flag.  Spain  was  the  most  indocile  ;  but  this  proud 
monarchy,  under  whose  auspices  the  African  slave-trade  first  came 
into  being,  at  last  yielded.  By  the  Treaty  of  Madrid,  of  22d 
September,  1817,  extorted  by  Great  Britain,  it  stipulated  the 
immediate  abolition  of  the  trade  north  of  the  Equator,  and 
also,  after  1820,  its  abolition  everywhere,  in  consideration  of 
<£400,000,  the  price  of  Freedom,  to  be  paid  by  the  other  contract 
ing  party.  In  vindication  of  this  Intervention,  Wilberforce  declared 
in  Parliament  that,  "  the  grant  to  Spain  wdtild  be  more  than 
repaid  to  Great  Britain  in  commercial  advantages  by  the  opening 
of  a  great  continent  to  British  industry," — all  of  which  was 
impossible  if  the  slave-trade  was  allowed  to  continue  under  the 
Spanish  flag. 

At  the  Congress  of  Aix  la  Chapelle  in  1818,  and  of  Yerona  in 
1822,  Great  Britain  continued  her  system  of  Intervention  against 
Slavery.  Her  primacy  in  this  cause  was  recognized  by  European 
Powers.  It  was  the  common  remark  of  continental  publicists 
that  she  "  made  the  cause  her  own."  (1  Phillimore  Interna 
tional  Law,  330.)  One  of  them  portrays  her  vividly  "  since  1810 
waging  incessant  war  against  the  principle  of  the  slave-trade,  and 
by  this  crusade,  undertaken  in  the  name  of  Humanity,  making 
herself  the  declared  protectress  of  the  African  race."  (Cmsy, 
Causes  Celebres  de  Droit  Maritime,  Yol.  i.  p.  157,  Yol.  ii.  pp. 
362,  63.)  These  are  the  words  of  a  French  authority.  Accord 
ing  to  him,  it  is  nothing  less  than  "  an  incessant  war "  and  a 
"  crusade,"  which  she  has  waged  and  the  position  wfeich  she  has 
achieved  is  that  of  "  Protectress  of  the  African  race."  In  this 
character  she  has  not  been  content  with  imposing  her  magnani 
mous  system  upon  the  civilized  world,  but  she  has  carried  it 
among  the  tribes  and  chiefs  of  Africa,  who  by  this  omnipresent 
Intervention,  were  summoned  to  renounce  a  barbarous  and  crim 
inal  custom.  By  a  Parliamentary  Report,  it  appears  that  in 
1850,  there  were  twenty-four  treaties  in  force,  between  Great 
Britain  and  foreign  civilized  Powers,  for  the  suppression  of  the 


44 

slave-trade,  and  also  forty-two  similar  treaties  between  Great 
Britain  and  native  chiefs  of  Africa. 

But  this  Intervention  was  not  only  by  treaties ;  it  was  also  by 
correspondence  and  circulars.  And  here  I  approach  a  part  of  the 
subject  which  illustrates  the  vivacity  of  this  Intervention.  All 
British  ministers  and  consuls  were  so  many  pickets  on  constant 
guard  in  the  out-posts  where  they  resided.  They  were  held  to 
every  service  by  which  the  cause  could  be  promoted,  even  to 
translating  and  printing  documents  against  the  slave-trade,  espe 
cially  in  countries  where  unhappily  it  was  still  pursued.  There 
was  the  Pope's  Bull  of  1839,  which  Lord  Palmerston  did  not  hesi 
tate  to  transmit  for  this  purpose  to  his  agents  in  Cuba,  Brazil, 
and  even  in  Turkey,  some  of  whom  were  unsuccessful  in  their 
efforts  to  obtain  its  publication,  although,  curiously  enough,  it 
was  published  in  Turkey.  (Parliamentary  Papers,  1841,  Yol.  xxx. 
Slave  Trade,  Class  B,  p.  S4,  197,  223 ;  Class  0,  p.  73,  Class  D, 
p.  15.) 

Such  a  zeal  could  not  stop  at  the  abolition  of  the  traffic. 
Accordingly  Great  Britain,  by  Act  of  Parliament  in  1834  enfran 
chised  all  the  slaves  in  her  own  possessions,  and  thus  again 
secured  to  herself  the  primacy  of  a  lofty  cause.  The  Inter 
vention  was  now  openly  declared  to  be  against-  Slavery  itself. 
But  it  assumed  its  most  positive  character  while  Lord  Palmerston 
was  Foreign  Secretary,  and  I  say  this  sincerely  to  his  great  honor. 
Throughout  his  long  life,  among  all  the  various  concerns  in  which 
he  has  acted,  there  is  nothing  which  will  be  remembered  hereafter 
with  such  gratitude.  By  his  diplomacy  her  Majesty's  Govern 
ment  constituted  itself  into  a  vast  Abolition  Society  with  the 
whole  world  for  its  field.  It  was  in  no  respect  behind  the  famous 
World's  Convention  against  Slavery,  held  at  London  in  June, 
1840,  with  Thomas  Clarkson,  the  pioneer  Abolitionist,  as  Presi 
dent;  for  the  strongest  declarations  of  this  Convention  were 
adopted  expressly  by  Lord  Palmerston  as  "  the  sentiments  of  her 
Majesty's  Government,"  and  communicated  officially  to  all  British 
functionaries  in  foreign  lands.  The  Convention  declared  "  the 
utter  injustice  of  Slavery  in  all  its  forms ;  and  the  evil  it  inflicted 
upon  its  miserable  victims  ;  and  the  necessity  of  employ  in  g  every 
means,  moral,  pacific,  and  religious,  for  its  complete  abolition — 
an  object  most  dear  to  the  members  of  the  Convention,  and  for 
the  consummation  of  which  they  are  especially  assembled." 
These  words  became  the  words  of  the  British  Government,  and, 
in  circular  letters,  were  sent  over  the  world.  (Parliamentary 
Papers,  1841,  Vol.  xxx.  Class  B,  p.  33.) 

But  it  was  not  enough  to  declare  the  true  principles.  They 
must  be  enforced.  Spain  and  Portugal  hung  back.  The  Secre 
tary  of  the  Anti-Slavery  Society  was  sent  "  to  endeavor  to  create 
in  these  countries  a  public  feeling  in  favor  of  the  abolition  of 
Slavery,"  and  the  British  Minister  at  Lisbon  was  desired  by  Lord 


45 

Palmerston  "  to  afford  all  the  assistance  and  protection  in  his  power 
for  promoting  the  object  of  his  journey."  (Ibid,  p.  128.)  British 
officials  in  foreign  countries  sometimes  back-slided.  This  was 
corrected  by  another  circular  addressed  to  all  the  four  quarters 
of  the  globe,  setting  forth,  "  that  it  would  be  unfitting  that  any 
officer,  holding  an  appointment  under  the  British  Government 
should,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  hold  or  be  interested  in  slave 
property."  The  Parliamentary  Papers,  which  attest  the  univer 
sality  of  this  instruction,  show  the  completeness  with  which  it  was 
executed.  The  consul  at  Rio  Janeiro,  in  slave-holding  Brazil, 
had  among  his  domestics  three  negro  slaves,  "  one  a  groom  and 
the  other  a  waiter  and  a  woman  he  was  forced  to  hire  as  a  nurse 
to  his  children;"  but  he  discharged  .them  at  once  tinder  the  Anti- 
Slavery  discipline  of  the  British  Foreign  office,  and  Lord  Palmers- 
ton  in  a  formal  despatch  "  expresses  his  satisfaction."  (Ibid, 
1842,  Vol.  xlviii.  Class  B,  p.  732.)  In  Cuba,  at  the  time  of  the 
reception  there  was  not  a  single  resident  officer  holding  under  its 
British  Crown  "  who  was  entirely  free  from  the  charge  of  counte 
nancing  Slavery."  But  only  a  few  days  afterwards,  it  was 
iQfficially  reported,  that  there  was  "  not  a  single  British  officer 
residing  there  who  had  not  relinquished-  or  was  not  at  least 
preparing  to  relinquish  the  odious  practice."  (Ibid,  p.  20(3.) 
This  was  quick  work.  Thus  was  the  practice  according  to  the 
rule.  Every  person,  holding  an  office  under  the  British  govern 
ment,  was  constrained  to  set  his  face  against  Slavery,  and  the  way 
was  by  having  nothing1  to  do  with  it,  even  in  employing  or  hiring 
the  slave  of  another  ;  nothing,  directly  or  indirectly. 

But  Lord  Palmerston,  acting  in  the  name  of  the  British  Gov 
ernment,  did  not  stop  with  changing  British  officials  into  practi 
cal  Abolitionists  whenever  they  were  in  foreign  countries.  He 
sought  to  enlist  other  European  governments  in  the  same  policy, 
and  to  this  end  requested  them  to  forbid  all  their  functionaries, 
residing  in  slave-holding  communities,  to  be  interested  in  slave 
property  or  in  any  holding  or  hiring  of  slaves.  Denmark  for  a 
moment  hesitated,  from  an  unwillingness  to  debar  its  officers  in 
slave  countries  from  acting  according  to  the  laws  where  they 
resided,  when  the  minister  at  once  cited  in  support  of  his  request, 
the  example  of  Belgium,  Holland,  Sweden,  Naples  and  Portugal, 
all  of  which  without  delay  had  yielded  to  this  British  Interven 
tion  ;  and  Denmark  ranged  herself  in  the  list.  (Ibid,  p.  42. 
Vol.  xliv.  Class  C,  pp.  7-15.)  Nor  was  this  indefatigable  Propa 
ganda  confined  in  its  operations  to  the  Christian  Powers.  With  a 
sacred  pertinacity  it  reached  into  distant  Mohammedan  regions, 
where  Slavery  was  imbedded  not  only  in  the  laws,  but  in  the 
habits,  the  social  system,  and  the  very  life  of  the  people,  and 
called  upon  the  Government  to  act  against  it.  No  impediment 
stood  in  the  way  ;  no  prejudice,  national  or  religious.  To  the 
Schah  of  Persia,  ruling  a  vast,  outlying  slave  empire,  Lord  Pal- 


46 

merston  announced  the  desire  of  the  British  Government  "  to  see 
the  condition  of  Slavery  abolished  in  every  part  of  the  world  ;  " 
"  that  it  conceived  much  good  might  be  accomplished  even  in 
Mohammedan  countries  by  steady  perseverance  and  by  never  omit 
ting  to  take  advantage  of  favorable  opportunities,"  and  "  that  the 
Schah  would  be  doing  a  thing  extremely  acceptable  to  the  British 
Government  and  nation  if  he  would  issue  a  decree  making  it 
penal  for  a  Persian  to  purchase  slaves."  (./&«/,  1842,  Vol.  xliv. 
Class  D,  p.  70.)  To  the  Sultan  of  Turkey,  whose  mother  was  a 
slave,  whose  wives  were  all  slaves,  and  whose  very  counsellors, 
generals  and  admirals  were  originally  slaves,  he  made  a  similar 
appeal,  and  he  sought  to  win  the  dependent  despot  by  reminding 
him  that  only  in  this  way  could  he  hope  for  that  good  will  which 
was  so  essential  to  his  government;  "  that  the  continued  support 
of  Great  Britain  will  for  some  years  to  come  be  an  object  of 
importance  to  the  Porte  ;  that  this  support  cannot  be  given  effect 
ually  unless  the  sentiments  and  opinions  of  the  majority  of  the 
British  nation  shall  be  favorable  to  the  Turkish  Government,  and 
that  the  whole  of  the  British  nation  unanimously  desire  beyond 
almost  any  thins?  else  to  put  an  end  to  the  practice  of  making 
slaves."  (Ibid,  1841,  Vol.  xxx.  Class  D,  pp.  15-18 ;  also,  Ibid, 
1842,  Vol.  xliv.  Class  D,  p.  73.)  Such  at  that  time  was  the  voice 
of  the  British  people.  Since  Cromwell  pleaded  for  the  Vaudois, 
no  nobler  voice  had  gone  forth.  The  World's  Convention  against 
Slavery  saw  itself  transfigured,  while  platform  speeches  were  trans 
fused  into  diplomatic  notes.  The  Convention,  earnest  for  Uni 
versal  Emancipation,  declared  that  "  the  friendly  interposition  of 
Great  Britain  could  be  employed  for  no  nobler  purpose  ;  "  and,  as 
if  to  crown  its  work,  in  an  address  to  Lord  Palmcrston,  humbly 
and  earnestly  implored  his  lordship  "  to  use  ins  high  authority  for 
connecting  the  overthrow  of  slavery  with  the  consolidation  of 
peace ; "  and  all  these  words  were  at  once  adopted  in  foreign 
despatches  as  expressing  the  sentiments  of  Her  Majesty's  Gov 
ernment.  (Ibid,  1841,  Vol.  xxx.  Class  D,  pp.  15,  16.)  Better 
watch-words  there  could  not  be,  nor  any  more  worthy  of  the 
British  name.  There  can  be  no  consolidation  of  peace  without 
the  overthrow  of  Slavery.  This  is  as  true  now  as  when  first 
uttered.  Therefore  is  Great  Britain  still  bound  to  her  original 
faith ;  nor  can  she  abandon  the  cause  of  which  she  was  the 
declared  Protectress  without  the  betrayal  of  Peace,  as  well  as  the 
betrayal  of  Liberty. 

But  even  now  while  I  speak  this  same  conspicuous  fidelity  to  a 
sacred  cause  is  announced  by  the  recent  arrivals  from  Europe. 
The  ship  canal  across  the  Isthmus  of  Suez,  first  attempted  by  the 
early  Pharaohs,  and  at  last  undertaken  by  French  influence  under 
the  auspices  of  the  Pacha  of  Egypt,  is  most  zealously  opposed  by 
Great  Britain — for  the  declared  reason,  that  in  its  construction 
"forced  labor"  is  employed,  which  this  Power  cannot  in  con- 


47 

science  sanction.  Not  even  to  complete  this  vast  improvement, 
bringing  the  East  and  the  West  near  together,  for  which  mankind 
has  waited  throughout  long  centuries,  will  Great  Britain  depart 
from  the  rule  which  she  has  so  gloriously  declared.  Slavery  is 
wrong  ;  therefore  it  cannot  be  employed.  The  canal  must  stop 
if  it  cannot  be  built  without  "  forced  labor.'' 


General  Principles  applicable  to  Intervention. 

And  here  I  close  the  historic  instances  which  illustrate  the 
right  and  practice  of  Foreign  Intervention.  The  whole  subject 
will  be  seen  in  these  instances,  teaching  clearly  what  to  avoid 
and  what  to  follow.  In  this  way  the  Law  of  Nations,  like  history, 
gives  its  best  lessons.  But,  for  tfie  sake  of  plainness,  I  now 
gather  up  some  of  the  conclusions. 

Foreign  Intervention  is  armed  or  unarmed,  although  sometimes 
the  two  are  not  easily  distinguishable.  An  unarmed  Intervention 
may  have  in  it  the  menace  of  arms,  or  it  may  be  war  in  disguise. 
If  this  is  the  case,  it  must  be  treated  accordingly. 

Armed  Intervention  is  war  and  nothing  less.  Of  course  it  can 
be  vindicated  only  as  war,  and  it  must  be  resisted  as  war. 
Believing  as  I  do,  most  profoundly,  that  war  can  never  be  a  game, 
but  must  always  be  a  crime  when  it  ceases  to  be  a  duty  ;  a  crime 
to  be  shunned  if  it  be  not  a  duty  to  be  performed  swiftly  and 
surely  ;  and  that  a  nation,  like  an  individual,  is  not  permitted  to 
take  the  sword,  except  in  just  self-defence — I  find  the  same  lim 
itation  in  Armed  Intervention,  which  becomes  unjust  invasion  just 
in  proportion  as  it  departs  from  just  self-defence.  Under  this 
head  is  naturally  included  all  that  Intervention  which  is  moved 
hy  a  tyrannical  or  intermeddling  spirit,  because  such  Intervention, 
whatever  may  be  its  professions,  is  essentially  hostile ;  as  when 
Russia,  Prussia  and  Austria,  partitioned  Poland  ;  when  the  Holy 
Alliance  intermeddled  everywhere,  and  menaced  even  America ; 
or  when  Russia  intervened  to  crush  the  independence  of  Hungary, 
or  France  to  crush  the  Roman  Republic.  All  such  Intervention 
is  illegal,  inexcusable  and  scandalous.  Its  vindication  can  be 
found  only  in  the  effrontery  that  might  makes  right. 

Unarmed  Intervention  is  of  a  different  character.  If  sincerely 
unarmed,  it  may  be  regarded  as  obtrusive,  but  not  hostile.  It 
may  assume  the  form  of  Mediation,  or  the  proffer  of  good  offices, 
at  the  invitation  of  both  parties,  or,  in  the  case  of  civil  war,  at 
the  invitation  of  the  original  authority.  With  such  invitation, 
this  Intervention  is  proper  and  honorable.  Without  such  invita 
tion  it  is  of  doubtful  character.  But  if  known  to  be  contrary  to 
the  desires  of  both  parties,  or  to  the  desires  of  the  original 
authority  in  a  distracted  country,  it  becomes  offensive  and  inad- 


48 

missible,  unless  obviously  on  the  side  of  Human  Rights,  when 
the  act  of  Intervention  takes  its  character  from  the  cause  in  which 
it  is  made.  But  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that,  in  the  case  of  a 
civil  war,  any  Mediation,  or  indeed,  any  proposition  which  does 
not  enjoin  submission  to  the  original  authority,  is  in  its  nature 
adverse  to  that  authority,  for  it  assumes  to  a  certain  extent  the 
separate  existence  of  the  other  party,  and  secures  for  it  temporary 
immunity  and  opportunity,  if  not  independence.  Congress, 
therefore,  was  Bright  in  declaring  to  Foreign  Powers,  that  any 
renewed  effort  of  mediation  in  our  affairs  will  be  regarded  as  an 
unfriendly  act. 

There  is  another  case  of  unarmed  Intervention,  which  I  cannot 
criticise.  It  is  where  a  nation  intercedes  or  interposes  in  favor 
of  Human  Rights,  or  to  secure  the  overthrow  of  some  enormous 
wrong,  as  where  Cromwell  pleaded,  with  noble  intercession,  for 
the  secluded  Protestants  of  the  Alpine  valleys ;  where  Great 
Britain  and  France  declared  their  sympathy  with  the  Greeks 
struggling  for  Independence,  and  where  Great  Britain  alone, 
by  an  untiring  diplomacy,  set  herself  against  Slavery  everywhere 
throughout  the  world. 

The  whole  lesson  on  this  head  may  be  summed  up  briefly.  All 
Intervention  in  the  internal  affairs  of  another  nation  is  contrary 
to  law  and  reason,  and  can  be  vindicated  only  by  overruling 
necessity.  If  you  intervene  by  war,  then  must  there  be  the 
necessity  of  self-defence.  If  you  intervene  by  Mediation  or  Inter 
cession,  then  must  you  be  able  to  speak  in  behalf  of  civilization 
endangered  or  human  nature  insulted.  But  there  is  no  Power 
which  is  bound  to  this  humane  policy  so  absolutely  as  England  ; 
especially  is  there  none  which  is  so"  fixed  beyond  the  possibility  of 
retreat  or  change  in  its  opposition  to  Slavery,  whatever  shape  this 
criminal  pretension  may  assume — whether  it  be  the  animating 
principle  of  a  nation — the  "  forced  labor  "  of  a  multitude — or  even 
the  service  of  a  solitary  domestic. 

[mo 

INTERVENTION  BY  RECOGNITION. 

There  is  a  species  of  Foreign  Intervention,  which  stands  by 
itself,  and  has  its  own  illustrations.  Therefore,  I  speak  of  it  by 
itself.  It  is  where  a  Foreign  Power  undertakes  to  acknowledge 
the  independence  of  a  colony  or  province  which  has  renounced  its 
original  allegiance,  and  it  may  be  compendiously  called  Interven 
tion  by  Recognition.  Recognition  alone  is  strictly  applicable  to 
the  act  of  the  original  government,  renouncing  all  claim  of  alle 
giance  and  at  last  acknowledging  the  Independence  which  has 
been  in  dispute.  But  it  is  an  act  of  Intervention  only  where  a 
Foreign  Government  steps  between  the  two  parties.  Of  course, 
the  original  government  is  so  far  master  of  its  position,  that  it  may 


49 

select  its  own  time  in  making  this  Recognition.  But  the  question 
arises  at  what  time  and  under  what  circumstances  can  this  Recog 
nition  be  made  by  a  Foreign  Power.  It  is  obvious  that  a  Recogni 
tion,  proper  at  one  time  and  under  special  circumstances,  would 
not  be  proper  at  another  and  under  different  circumstances. 
Mr.  Canning  said  with  reference  to  Spanish  America,  that  "  if  he 
piqued  himself  upon  any  thing  it  was  upon  the  subject  of  time" 
and  he  added  that  there  were  two  ways  of  proceeding,  "  one  went 
recklessly  and  with  a  hurried  course  to  the  object,  which,  though 
soon  reached,  might  be  almost  as  soon  lost,  and  the  other  was  by 
a  course  so  strictly  guarded  that  no  principle  was  violated  and 
no  offence  given  to  other  Powers."  (Hansard's  Parliamentary 
Debates,  2d  Series,  Yol.  xii.  p.  7,  8.)  These  are  words  of  wise 
statesmanship,  and  they  present  the  practical  question  which 
must  occur  in  every  case  of  Recognition.  What  condition  of  the 
controversy  will  justify  this  Intervention  ? 

And  here  again  the  whole  matter  can  be  best  explained  by 
historic  instances.  The  earliest  case  is  that  of  Switzerland  which 
led  the  way,  as  long  ago  as  1307,  by  breaking  off  from  the  House 
of  Hapsburg,  whose  original  cradle  was  in  a  Swiss  Canton.  But 
Austria  did  not  acknowledge  the  Independence  of  the  Republic 
until  the  peace  of  Westphalia,  more  than  three  centuries  and  a 
half  after  the  struggle  began  under  William  Tell.  Meanwhile 
the  Cantons  had  lived  through  the  vicissitudes  of  war  foreign  and 
domestic,  and  had  formed  treaties  with  other  Powers,  including 
the  Pope.  Before  Swiss  Independence  was  acknowledged,  the 
Dutch  conflict  began  under  William  of  Orange.  Smarting  iinder 
intolerable  grievances  and  with  a  price  set  upon  the  head  of  their 
illustrious  Stadholder,  the  United  Provinces  of  the  Netherlands 
in  1572  renounced  the  tyrannical  sovereignty  of  Philip  II.,  and 
declared  themselves  independent.  In  the  history  of  Freedom  this 
is  an  important  epoch.  They  were  Protestants,  battling  for  rights 
denied,  and  Queen  Elizabeth  of  England,  who  was  the  head  of 
Protestantism,  acknowledged  their  Independence  and  shortly  after 
wards  gave  to  it  military  aid.  The  contest  continued,  sustained 
on  the  side  of  Spain  by  the  genius  of  Parma  and  Spinola,  and  on 
the  side  of  the  infant  Republic  by  the  youthful  talent  of  Maurice, 
son  of  the  great  Stadholder ;  nor  did  Foreign  Powers  stand  aloof. 
In  1594,  Scotland,  which  was  Protestant  also,  under  James  VI., 
afterwards  the  first  James  of  England,  treated  with  the  insurgent 
Provinces  as  successors  of  the  Houses  of  Burgundy  and  Austria, 
and  in  1596  France  also  entered  into  alliance  with  them.  But 
the  claims  of  Spain  seemed  undying ;  for  it  was  not  until  the 
peace  of  Westphalia,  nearly  eighty  years  after  the  revolt,  and 
nearly  seventy  years  after  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  that 
this  Power  consented  to  the  Recognition  of  Dutch  Independence. 
Nor  does  this  example  stand  alone  even  at  that  early  day. 
Portugal  in  1640  also  broke  away  from  Spain  and  declared  herself 

4 


50 

independent,  tinder  the  Duke  of  Braganza  as  King.  A  year  had 
scarcely  passed  when  Charles  I.  of  England  negotiated  a  treaty 
with  the  new  sovereign.  The  contest  had  already  ceased  but  not 
the  claim ;  for  it  was  only  after  twenty-six  years  that  Spain  made 
this  other  Recognition. 

Traversing  the  Atlantic  Ocean  in  space  and  more  than  a  century 
in  time,  I  come  to  the  next  historic  instance  which  is  so  inter 
esting  to  us  all,  while  as  a  precedent  it  dominates  the  whole 
question.  The  long  discord  between  the  colonies  and  the  mother 
country  broke  forth  in  blood  on  the  19th  April,  1775.  Indepen 
dence  was  declared  on  the  4th  July,  1776.  Battles  ensued;  Tren 
ton,  Princeton,  Brandywine,  Saratoga,  followed  by  the  winter  of 
Valley  Forge.  The  contest  was  yet  undecided,  when  on  the  6th  Feb 
ruary,  1778,  France  entered  into  a  Treaty  of  Amity  and  Commerce 
with  the  United  States,  containing,  among  other  things,  a  Recogni 
tion  of  their  Independence,  with  mutual  stipulations  between  the 
two  parties  to  protect  the  commerce  of  the  other,  by  convoy  on 
the  ocean,  "against  all  attacks,  force  and  violence;"  (Statutes  at 
Larg-e,  Vol.  viii.  p.  16,)  and  this  Treaty  on  the  15th  March  was 
communicated  to  the  British  Government  by  the  French  Ambas 
sador  at  London,  with  a  diplomatic  note  in  which  the  United 
States  are  described  as  "in  full  possession  of  the  Independence 
pronounced  by  the  Act  of  4th  July,  1776,"  and  the  British  Gov 
ernment  is  warned  that  the  King  of  France, "in  order  to  protect 
effectively  the  legitimate  commerce  of  his  subjects  and  to  sus 
tain  the  honor  of  his  flag,  has  taken  further  measures  with  the 
United  States." — (Martens  Nouvelles  Causes  Celebres.  Yol.  i.  p. 
406.)  A  further  Treaty  of  Alliance,  whose  declared  object  was 
the  maintenance  of  the  Independence  of  the  United  States,  had 
been  signed  on  the  same  day ;  but  this  was  not  communicated  ; 
nor  is  there  any  evidence  that  it  was  known  to  the  British  Govern 
ment  at  the  time.  The  communication  of  the  other  was  enough ; 
for  it  was  in  itself  an  open  Recognition  of  the  new  Power,  with  a 
promise  of  protection  to  its  commerce  on  the  ocean,  ivhile  the  war 
ivas  yet  flagrant  between  the  two  parties.  As  such  it  must  be 
regarded  as  an  Armed  Recognition,  constituting  in  itself  a  bellig 
erent  act — aggravated  and  explained  by  the  circumstances  under 
which  it  was  made — the  warning,  in  the  nature  of  a  menace, 
by  which  it  was  accompanied — the  clandestine  preparations  by 
which  it  was  preceded — and  the  corsairs  to  cruise  against  British 
commerce,  which  for  some  time  had  been  allowed  to  swarm 
under  the  American  flag  from  French  ports.  It  was  so  accepted 
by  the  British  Government.  The  British  Minister  was  summa 
rily  withdrawn  from  Paris  ;  all  French  vessels  in  British  harbors 
were  seized,  and  on  the  17th  March  a  message  from  the  king 
was  brought  down  to  Parliament,  which  was  in  the  nature  of  a 
declaration  of  war  against  France.  In  this  declaration  there 
was  no  allusion  to  any  thing  but  the  Treaty  of  Amity  and  Com- 


51 

merce,  officially  communicated  by  the  French  Ambassador,  which 
was  denounced  by  his  majesty  as  an  "unprovoked  and  unjust 
aggression  on  the  honor  of  his  crown  and  the  essential  interests 
of  his  kingdoms,  contrary  to  the  law  of  nations,  and  injurious  to 
the  rights  of  every  Foreign  Power  in  Europe"  Only  three  days 
later,  on  the  21st  March,  the  Commissioners  of  the  United  States 
were  received  by  the  King  of  France,  in  solemn  audience,  with 
all  the  pomp  and  ceremony  accorded  by  the  Court  of  Versailles 
to  the  representatives  of  Sovereign  Powers.  War  ensued  between 
France  and  Great  Britain  on  land  and  sea,  in  which  Holland  and 
Spain  afterwards  took  part  against  Great  Britain.  With  such 
allies  a  just  cause  prevailed.  Great  Britain  by  Provisional 
Articles,  signed  at  Paris  30th  November,  1782,  acknowledged  the 
United  States  "  to  be  free,  sovereign  and  independent,"  and 
declared  the  boundaries  thereof. 

The  success  of  colonial  Independent  was  contagious,  and  the 
contest  for  it  presented  another  historic  instance  more  discussed 
and  constituting  a  precedent;,  if  possible,  more  interesting  still. 
This  was  when  the  Spanish  Colonies  in  America,  following  the  north 
ern  example,  broke  away  from  the  mother  country  and  declared 
themselves  independent.  The  contest  began  as  early  as  1810 ; 
but  it  was  long  continued  and  extended  over  an  immense  region — 
from  New  Mexico  and  California  in  the  North  to  Cape  Horn  in 
the  South — washed  by  two  vast  oceans- — traversed  by  mighty  rivers 
and  divided  by  lofty  mountains — fruitful  in  silver — capped  with 
snow  and  shooting  with  volcanic  fire.  At  last  the  United  States 
satisfied  that  the  ancient  power  of  Spain  had  practically  ceased  to 
exist,  beyond  a  reasonable  chance  of  restoration,  and  that  the 
contest  was  ended,  acknowledged  the  Independence  of  Mexico  and 
five  other  provinces.  But  this  act  was  approached  only  after  fre 
quent  debate  in  Congress,  where  Henry  Clay  took  an  eminent 
part,  and  after  most  careful  consideration  in  the  cabinet,  where 
John  Quincy  Adams,  as  Secretary  of  State,  shed  upon  the  ques 
tion  all  the  light  of  his  unsurpassed  knowledge,  derived  from 
long  practice,  as  well  as  from  laborious  study,  of  International 
Law.  The  judgment  on  this  occasion  must  be  regarded  as  an 
authority.  President  Munroe  in  a  Special  Message,  on  the  8th 
March,  1822 — twelve  years  after  the  war  began — called  the  atten 
tion  of  Congress  to  the  state  of  the  contest  which  he  said  "had 
now  reached  such  a  stage  and  been  attended  with  such  decisive 
success  on  the  part  of  the  provinces,  that  it  merits  the  most 
profound  consideration  whether  their  right  to  the  rank  of  inde 
pendent  nations,  with  all  the  advantages  incident  to  it,  in  their 
intercourse  with  the  United  States,  is  not  complete."  After 
setting  forth  the  de  facto  condition  of  things,  he  proceeded ; 
"  Thus  it  is  manifest  that  all  these  provinces  are  not  only  in 
the  full  enjoyment  of  their  independence,  but,  considering  the 
state  of  the  war  and  other  circumstances,  that  there  is  not  the 


52 

most  remote  prospect  of  their  being'  deprived  of  it"  In  proposing 
their  Recognition  the  President  declared  that  it  was  done  "  under 
a  thorough  conviction  that  it  is  in  strict  accord  with  the  law  of 
nations,"  and  further  that  "  it  is  not  contemplated  to  change 
thereby,  in  the  slightest  manner,  our  friendly  relations  with  either 
of  the  parties."  In  accordance  with  this  recommendation  Con 
gress  authorized  the  Recognition.  Two  years  later,  the  same 
thing  was  done  by  Great  Britain,  after  much  debate  diplomatic 
and  parliamentary.  No  case  of  International  duty  has  been  illus 
trated  by  a  clearer  eloquence,  an  ampler  knowledge  or  a  purer 
wisdom.  The  despatches  were  written  by  Mr.  Canning,  and 
upheld  by  liim  in  Parliament ;  but  Lord  Liverpool  took  part  in  the 
discussion — succinctly  declaring,  that  there  could  be  no  right  to 
Recognition  "  while  the  contest  was  actually  going  on,"  a  conclusion 
which  was  cautiously  but^ptrongly  enforced  by  Lord  Lansdowne 
and  nobly  vindicated  in  an  Oration,  reviewing  the  whole  subject, 
by  that  great  publicist  Sir  James  Mackintosh.  (Mackintosh }s 
Works  Yol.  iii.  p.  438.)  All  inclined  to  Recognition  but  admitted 
that  it  could  not  take  place  so  long  as  the  contest  continued ;  and 
that  there  must  be  "  such  a  contest  as  exhibits  some  equality  of 
force,  so  that  if  the  combatants  were  left  to  themselves,  the  issue 
would  be  in  some  degree  doubtful."  But  the  Spanish  strength 
throughout  the  whole  continent  was  reduced  to  a  single  castle  in 
Mexico,  an  island  on  the  coast  of  Chili,  and  a  small  army  in 
Upper  Peru,  while  in  Buenos  Ay  res  no  Spanish  soldier  had  set 
foot  for  fourteen  years.  "Is  this  a  contest"  said  Mackintosh 
"approaching  to  equality?  Is  it  sufficient  to  render  the  inde 
pendence  of  such  a  country  doubtful  ?  Does  it  deserve  the  name 
of  a  contest  ?  "  It  was  not  until  1825  that  Great  Britain  was  so 
far  satisfied  as  to  acknowledge  this  Independence.  France  fol 
lowed  in  1830  ;  and  Castilian  pride  relented  in  1832,  twenty-two 
years  from  the  first  date  of  the  contest. 

The  next  instance  is  that  of  Greece,  which  declared  itself  Inde 
pendent  January  27, 1822.  After  a  contest  of  more  than  five 
years,  with  alternate  success  and  disaster,  the  Great  Powers  inter 
vened  forcibly  in  1827 ;  but  the  final  Recognition  was  postponed 
till  May  1832.  Then  came  the  instance  of  Belgium,  which 
declared  itself  Independent  in  October,  1830,  and  was  promptly 
recognized  by  the  Great  Powers  who  intervened  forcibly  for  this 
purpose.  The  last  instance  is  Texas,  which  declared  its  Indepen 
dence  in  December,  1835,  and  defeated  the  Mexican  Army  under 
Santa  Anna,  making  him  prisoner,  in  1836.  The  power  of  Mexico 
seemed  to  be  overthrown,  but  Andrew  Jackson,  who  was  then 
President  of  the  United  States,  in  his  Message  of  December  21, 
1836,  laid  down  the  rule  of  caution  and  justice  on  such  an  occa 
sion,  as  follows ;  "  The  acknowledgment  of  a  new  State  as  inde 
pendent  and  entitled  to  a  place  in  the  family  of  nations,  is  at  all 
times  an  act  of  great  delicacy  and  responsibility;  but  more 


53 

especially  so  when  such  state  has  forcibly  separated  itself  from 
another,  of  which  it  had  formed  an  integral  part  and  which  still 
claims  dominion  over  it.  A  premature  recognition  under  these 
circumstances,  if  not  looked  upon  as  justifiable  cause  of  war,  is 
always  liable  to  be  regarded  as  a  proof  of  an  unfriendly  spirit." 
And  he  concluded  by  proposing  that  our  country  should  "  keep 
aloof"  until  the  question  was  decided  "beyond  cavil  or  dispute." 
During  the  next  year — when  the  contest  had  practically  ceased 
and  only  the  claim  remained — this  new  Power  was  acknowledged 
by  the  United  States,  who  were  followed  in  1840  by  Great  Britain, 
France  and  Belgium.  Texas  was  annexed  to  the  United  States 
in  1845,  but  at  this  time  Mexico  had  not  joined  in  the  general 
recognition 

Principles  Applicable  to  Recognition. 

Such  are  the  historic  instances  which  illustrate  Intervention  by 
Recognition.  As  in  other  cases  of  Intervention,  the  Recognition 
may  be  armed  or  unarmed,  with  an  intermediate  case,  where  the 
Recognition  may  seem  to  be  unarmed  when  in  reality  it  is 
armed,  as  when  France  simply  announced  its  Recognition  of  the 
Independence  of  the  United  States,  and  at  the  same  time  prepared 
to  maintain  it  by  war. 

Armed  Recognition  is  simply  Recognition  by  Coercion.  It  is  a 
belligerent  act  constituting  war,  and  it  can  be  vindicated  only  as 
war.  No  nation  will  undertake  it,  unless  ready  to  assume  all  tho 
responsibilities  of  war,  as  in  the  recent  cases  of  Greece  and  Bel 
gium,  not  to  mention  the  Recognition  of  the  United  States  by 
France.  But  an  attempt,  under  the  guise  of  Recognition,  to 
coerce  the  dismemberment  or  partition  of  a  country  is  in  its 
nature  offensive  beyond  ordinary  war  ;  especially  when  the  coun 
try  to  be  sacrificed  is  a  Republic  and  the  plotters  against  it  are 
crowned  heads.  Proceeding  from  the  consciousness  of  brutal 
power,  such  an  attempt  is  an  insult  to  mankind.  If  Armed 
Recognition  at  any  time  can  find  apology,  it  will  be  only  where 
it  is  sincerely  made  for  the  protection  of  Human  Rights.  It 
would  be  hard  to  condemn  that  Intervention  which  saved  Greece 
to  Freedom. 

Unarmed  Recognition  is  where  a  Foreign  Power  acknowledges 
in  some  pacific  form  the  Independence  of  a  colony  or  province 
against  the  claim  of  its  original  Government.  Although  exclud 
ing  all  idea  of  coercion,  yet  it  cannot  be  uniformly  justified. 

No  Recognition  where  the  Contest  is  still  pending. 

And  here  we  are  brought  to  that  question  of  "  time,"  on  which 
Mr.  Canning  so  pointedly  piqued  himself,  and  to  which  President 
Jackson  referred,  when  he  suggested  that  "  a  premature  Recog 
nition"  might  be  "looked  upon  as  justifiable  cause  of  war." 


54 

Nothing  is  more  clear  than  that  Recognition  may  be  favored  at 
one  time,  while  it  must  be  rejected  at  another.  So  far  as  it 
assumes  to  ascertain  Rights  instead  of  Facts,  or  to  anticipate 
the  result  of  a  contest,  it  is  wrongful.  No  Nation  can  under 
take  to  sit  in  judgment  on  the  rights  of  another  Nation  with 
out  its  consent.  Therefore,  it  cannot  declare  that  de  jure  a 
colony  or  province  is  entitled  to  Independence ;  but  from  the 
necessity  of  the  case  and  that  international  intercourse  may  not 
fail,  it  may  ascertain  the  facts,  carefully  and  wisely,  and,  on 
the  actual  evidence,  it  may  declare  that  de  facto  the  colony  or 
province  appears  to  be  in  possession  of  Independence,  which 
means,  first,  that  the  original  Government  is  dispossessed  beyond 
the  possibility  of  recovery,  and  secondly,  that  the  new  Govern 
ment  has  achieved  that  reasonable  stability  with  fixed  limits 
which  gives  assurance  of  a  solid  Power.  All  of  this  is  simply 
fact  and  nothing  more.  But  just  in  proportion  as  a  Foreign 
Nation  anticipates  the  fact,  or  imagines  the  fact,  or  substitutes  its 
own  passions  for  the  fact,  it  transcends  the  well-defined  bounds 
of  International  Law.  Without  the  fact  of  Independence,  posi 
tive  and  fixed,  there  is  nothing  but  a  claim.  Now  nothing  can  be 
clearer  than  that  while  the  terrible  litigation  is  still  pending  and 
the  Trial  by  Battle,  to  which  appeal  has  been  made,  is  yet  unde 
cided,  the  fact  of  Independence  cannot  exist.  There  is  only  a 
paper  Independence,  which  though  reddened  with  blood,  is  no 
better  than  a  paper  empire  or  a  paper  blockade,  and  any  pretended 
Recognition  of  it  is  a  wrongful  Intervention,  inconsistent  with  a 
just  neutrality,  since  the  obvious  effect  must  be  to  encourage 
the  insurgent  party.  Such  has  been  the  declared  judgment  of 
our  country  and  its  practice,  even  under  circumstances  tempting 
in  another  direction,  and  such  also  was  the  declared  judgment 
and  practice  of  Great  Britain  with  reference  to  Spanish  America. 

The  conclusion,  then,  is  clear.  In  order  to  justify  a  Recogni 
tion  it  must  appear  beyond  doubt  that  de  facto  the  contest  is 
finished,  and  that  de  facto  the  new  government  is  established 
secure  within  fixed  limits.  These  are  conditions  precedent 
which  cannot  be'  avoided,  without  an  open  offence  to  a  friendly 
Power,  and  an  open  violation  of  that  International  Law  which  is 
the  guardian  of  the  peace  of  the  world.  It  will  be  for  us  shortly 
to  inquire  if  there  be  not  another  condition  precedent,  which 
civilization  in  this  age  will  require. 

Do  you  ask  now  if  Foreign  Powers  can  acknowledge  our  Slave- 
monger  embryo  as  an  Independent  Nation  ?  There  is  madness  in 
the  thought.  A  Recognition,  accompanied  by  the  breaking  of  the 
blockade  would  be  war — impious  war — against  the  United  States, 
where  Slave-mongers  would  be  the  allies  and  Slavery  the  inspira 
tion.  Of  all  wars  in  history  none  more  accursed ;  none  more 
sure  to  draw  down  upon  its  authors  the  judgment  alike  of  God 
and  man.  But  the  thought  of  Recognition — under  existing  cir- 


55 

cumstances — while  the  contest  is  still  pending — even  without  any 
breaking  of  the  blockade  or  attempted  coercion,  is  a  Satanic 
absurdity,  hardly  less  impious  than  the  other.  Of  course,  it 
would  unblushingly  assume  that,  in  fact,  the  Slave-mongers 
had  already  succeeded  in  establishing  an  Independent  Nation 
with  an  untroubled  government,  and  a  secure  conformation 
of  territory — when  in  fact,  nothing  is  established — nothing  is 
untroubled — nothing  is  secure, — not  even  a  single  boundary  line; 
and  there  is  no  element  of  Independence  except  the  audacious 
attempt ;  when,  in  fact,  the  conflict  is  still  waged  on  numerous 
battle-fields,  and  these  pretenders  to  Independence  have  been 
driven  from  State  to  State — driven  away  from  the  Mississippi, 
which  parts  them — driven  back  from  the  sea  which  surrounds 
them — and  shut  up  in  the  interior  or  in  blockaded  ports,  so  that 
only  by  stealth  can  they  communicate  with  the  outward  world. 
Any  Recognition  of  such  a  pretension,  existing  only  as  a  pre 
tension,  scouted  and  denied  by  a  whole  people  with  invincible 
armies  and  navies  embattled  against  it,  would  be  a  flaming 
mockery  of  Truth.  It  would  assert  Independence  as  a  fact 
when  notoriously  it  was  not  a  fact.  It  would  be  an  enormous  lie. 
Naturally  a  Power  thus  guilty  would  expect  to  support  the  lie  by 
arms. 

[IV.] 

IMPOSSIBILITY  OP  ANY  RECOGNITION   OF  REBEL   SLAVE-MONGERS 
WITH  SLAVERY  AS  A  CORNER-STONE. 

But  I  do  not  content  myself  with  a  single  objection  to  this 
outrageous  consummation.  There  is  another  of  a  different  nature. 
Assuming,  for  the  moment,  what  I  am  glad  to  believe  can  never 
happen,  that  the  new  Slave  Power  has  become  Independent  in 
fact,  while  the  national  flag  has  sunk  away  exhausted  in  the  con 
test,  there  is  an  objection  which,  in  an  age  of  Christian  light,  thank 
God !  cannot  be  overcome — unless  the  Great  Powers  which,  by 
solemn  covenants,  have  branded  Slavery,  shall  forget  their  vows, 
while  England,  the  declared  protectress  of  the  African  race,  and 
France,  the  declared  champion  of  "  ideas,"  both  break  away  from 
the  irresistible  logic  of  their  history  and  turn  their  backs  upon 
the  past.  Yain  is  honor;  vain  is  human  confidence,  if  these 
nations  at  a  moment  of  high  duty  can  thus  ignobly  fail.  "  Renown 
and  grace  is  dead."  Like  the  other  objection,  this  is  of  fact 
also  ;  for  it  is  founded  on  the  character  of  the  Slave-monger  pre 
tension  claiming  Recognition,  all  of  which  is  a  fact.  Perhaps  it 
may  be  said  that  it  is  a  question  of  policy  ;  but  it  is  of  a  policy 
which  ought  to  be  beyond  question,  if  the  fact  be  established. 
Something  more  is  necessary  than  that  the  new  Power  shall  be 
de  facto  Independent.  It  must  be  de  facto  fit  to  be  Independent  and 
from  the  nature  of  the  case  every  nation  will  judge  of  this  fitness 


56 

as  a  fact.  In  undertaking  to  acknowledge  a  neiv  Power,  you 
proclaim  its  fitness  for  welcome  and  association  in  the  Family  of 
Nations.  Can  England  put  forth  such  a  proclamation  in  favor  of 
the  whippers  of  women  and  sellers  of  children  ?  Can  France 
permit  Louis  Napoleon  to  put  forth  such  a  proclamation  ? 

And  here,  on  the  threshold  of  this  inquiry,  the  true  state  of  the 
question  must  not  be  forgotten.  It  is  not  whether  old  and  existing 
relations  shall  be  continued  with  a  Power  which  permits  Slavery  ; 
but  whether  relations  shall  be  begun  with  a  new  Power,  which 
not  merely  permits  Slavery,  but  builds  its  whole  intolerable 
pretension  upon  this  Barbarism.  "  No  New.  Slave  State  "  is  a 
watchword  with  which  we  are  already  familiar  ;  but  even  this  cry 
does  not  reveal  the  full  opposition  to  this  neio  revolt  against  Civili 
zation  ;  for  even  if  disposed  to  admit  a  new  Slave  State,  there 
must  be,  among  men  who  have  not  yet  lost  all  sense  of  decency, 
an  undying  resistance  to  the  admission  of  a  New  Slave  Power, 
having  such  an  unquestioned  origin  and  such  an  unquestioned 
purpose  as  that  which  now  flaunts  in  piracy  and  blood  before  the 
civilized  world,  seeking  Recognition  for  its  criminal  chimera. 
Here  is  nothing  for  nice  casuistry.  Duty  is  as  plain  as  the  moral 
law  or  the  multiplication  table. 

Look  for  a  moment  at  the  unprecedented  character  of  this  pre 
tension.  A  President  had  been  elected  by  the  people,  in  the 
autumn  of  1860,  who  was  known  to  be  against  the  extension  of 
Slavery.  This  was  all.  He  had  not  yet  entered  upon  the  per 
formance  of  his  duties.  But  the  Slave-mongers  saw  that  Slavery 
at  home  must  suffer  under  this  popular  judgment  against  its 
extension,  and  they  rebelled.  Under  this  inspiration  State  after 
State  pretended  to  withdraw  from  the  Union  and  to  construct  a 
new  Confederacy,  whose  "  corner-stone  "  was  Slavery.  A  Consti 
tution. was  adopted,  which  declared  in,  these  words:  (1.)  "  No 
law  denying  or  impairing  the  right  of  property  in  negro  slaves 
shall  be  passed ;  "  and  (2.)  "  in  all  territory,  actual  or  acquired, 
the  institution  of  Negro  Slavery,  as  it  now  exists  in  the  Confederate 
States,  shall  be  recognized  and  protected  by  Congress  and  the 
Territorial  Government."  Do  not  start.  These  are  the  authentic 
words  of  the  text.  You  will  find  them  in  the  Constitution. 

Such  was  the  unalterable  fabric  of  the  new  Government.  Nor 
was  there  any  doubt  or  hesitation  in  proclaiming  its  distinctive 
character.  Its  Vice-President,  Mr.  Stephens,  who  thus  far  had 
been  remarked  for  his  moderation  on  Slavery,  as  if  smitten  with 
diabolic  light,  undertook  to  explain  and  vindicate  the  Magna  Carta 
just  adopted.  His  words  are  already  familiar  ;  but  they  cannot 
be  omitted  in  an  accurate  statement  of  the  case.  "  The  new 
Constitution"  he  said,  "  has  put  at  rest  forever  all  the  agitating 
questions  relating  to  our  peculiar  institution,  African  Slavery,  as 
it  exists  among  us,"  which  he  proceeds  to  declare  "  was  the 
immediate  cause  of  the  late  rupture  and  present  revolution." 


57 

The  Yice-President  then  announced  unequivocally  ^  the  change 
that  had  taken  place.  Admitting  that  "  it  was  ttie  prevailing 
idea  of  the  leading  statesmen  at  the  foundation  of  the  Old  Consti 
tution  that  the  enslavement  of  the  African  was  wrong  in  principle, 
socially,  morally  and  politically,  and  that  it  was  a  violation  of  the 
laws  of  nature,"  he  denounces  this  idea  as  "  fundamentally 
wrong,"  and  proclaims  the  new  government  as  "  founded  upon 
exactly  the  opposite  idea"  There  was  no  disguise.  "  Its  founda 
tions,"  he  avows,  "  are  laid,  its  corner-stone  rests  upon  the  great 
truth,  that  the  negro  is  not  equal  to  the  white  man  ;  that  Slavery, 
subordination  to  the  superior  race,  is  his  natural  and  normal  condi 
tion."  Not  content  with  exhibiting  the  untried  foundation,  he 
boastfully  claims  for  the  new  government  the  priority  of  invention. 
"  Our  new  Government"  he  vaunts,  "  is  the  first  in  the  history  of 
the  world  based  upon  this  great  physical,  philosophical  and  moral 
truth.  This  stone  which  was  rejected  by  the  first  builders  is 
become  the  chief  stone  of  the  corner."  And  then,  as  if  priority  of 
invention  were  not  enough,  he  proceeds  to  claim  for  the  new 
Government  future  supremacy ,'sayirig  that  it  is  already  "  a  growing 
power,  which  if  true  to  itself,  its  destiny  and  its  high  mission,  will 
become  the  controlling  power  upon  this  continent." 

Since  Satan  first  declared  the  "  corner-stone "  of  his  new 
government  and  openly  denounced  the  Almighty  throne,  there 
has  been  no  blasphemy  of  equal  audacity.  In  human  history 
nothing  but  itself  can  be  its  parallel.  Here  was  the  gauntlet 
thrown  down  to  Heaven  and  Earth,  while  a  disgusting  Barbarism 
was  proclaimed  as  the  new  Civilization.  Two  years  have  already 
passed,  but,  as  the  Rebellion  began,  so  it  is  now.  A  Governor  of 
South  Carolina  in  a  message  to  the  Legislature  as  late  as  3d 
April,  1863,  took  up  the  boastful  strain  and  congratulated  the 
Rebel  Slave-mongers  that  they  were  "  a  refined,  cultivated  and 
enlightened  people,"  and  that  the  new  Government  was  "  the 
finest  type  that  the  world  ever  beheld."  God  save  the  mark! 
And  a  leading  journal,  more  than  any  other  the  organ  of  the 
Slave-mongers,  has  uttered  the  original  vaunt  with  more  than  the 
original  brutality.  After  dwelling  on  "  the  grand  career  and 
lofty  destiny "  before  the  new  Government,  the  Richmond 
Examiner  of  28th  May,  1863,  proceeds  as  follows ;  "  Would  that 
all  of  us  understood  and  laid  to  heart  the  true  nature  of  that 
career  and  that  destiny  and  the  responsibility  it  imposes.  The 
establishment  of  the  Confederacy  is,  verily,  a  distinct  reaction 
against  the  whole  course  of  the  mistaken  civilization  of  the  age. 
For  Liberty,  Equality  and  Fraternity,  we  have  deliberately 
substituted  Slavery,  Subordination  and  Government.  Reverently 
ive  feel  that  our  Confederacy  is  a  God-sent  missionary  to  the 
nations  with  great  truths  to  preach.  We  must  speak  thus  boldly ; 
but  whoso  hath  ears  to  hear  let  him  hear."  It  is  this  God-sent 


58 

missionary  to  the  nations,  which  it  is  now  proposed  to  welcome  at 
the  household  hearth  of  the  civilized  world. 

Unhappily  there  are  old  nations,  still  tolerating  Slavery,  already 
in  the  Family ;  but  now,  for  the  first  time  in  history  a  new  nation 
claims  admission  there,  which  not  .only  tolerates  Slavery,  but, 
exulting  in  its  shame,  strives  to  reverse  the  judgment  of  mankind 
against  this  outrage,  and  to  make  it  a  chief  support  and  glory, 
so  that  all  Recognition  of  the  new  Power  will  be  the  Recognition 
of  a  sacrilegious  pretension, 

"  With  one  vast  blood-stone  for  the  mighty  base." 

Elsewhere  Slavery  has  been  an  accident;  here  it  is  the  prin 
ciple.  Elsewhere  it  has  been  an  instrument  only ;  here  it  is  the 
inspiration.  Elsewhere  it  has  been  kept  back  in  a  becoming 
modesty ;  here  it  is  pushed  forward  in  all  its  brutish  nakedness. 
Elsewhere  it  has  claimed  nothing  but  liberty  to  live ;  here  it 
claims  liberty  to  rule  with  unbounded  empire  at  home  and 
abroad.  Look  at  this  candidate  Power  as  you  will,  in  its 
whole  continued  existence,  from  its  Alpha  to  its  Omega,  and  it 
is  nothing  but  Slavery  !  Its  origin  is  Slavery  ;  its  main-spring  is 
Slavery ;  its  object  is  Slavery.  Wherever  it  appears,  whatever  it 
does,  whatever  form  it  takes,  it  is  Slavery  alone  and  nothing  else, 
so  that,  with  the  contrition  of  Satan,  it  might  cry  out, 

Me  miserable  !  which  way  shall  I  fly 
Infinite  wrath  and  infinite  despair  ? 
Which  way  I  fly  is  hell ;  myself  am  hell. 

The  Rebellion  is  Slavery  in  arms ;  Slavery  on  horse-back ; 
Slavery  on  foot ;  Slavery  raging  on  the  battle-field  ;  Slavery 
raging  on  the  quarter-deck,  robbing,  destroying,  burning,  killing, 
in  order  to  uphold  this  candidate  Power.  Its  legislation  is 
simply  Slavery  in  statutes ;  Slavery  in  chapters ;  Slavery  in 
sections — with  an  enacting  clause.  Its  Diplomacy  is  Slavery  in 
pretended  ambassadors ;  Slavery  in  cunning  letters ;  Slavery  in 
cozening  promises ;  Slavery  in  persistent  negotiations — all  to 
secure  for  the  candidate  Power  its  much  desired  welcome. 
Say  what  you  will ;  try  to  avoid  it  if  you  can  ;  you  are  com 
pelled  to  admit  that  the  candidate  Power  is  nothing  else 
than  organized  Slavery,  which  now  in  its  madness — sur 
rounded  by  its  criminal  clan,  and  led  by  its  felon  chieftains — 
braves  the  civilization  of  the  age.  Any  Recognition  of  Slavery  is 
bad  enough.  But  this  will  be  a  Recognition  of  Slavery  with 
welcome  and  benediction,  imparting  to  it  new  consideration  and 
respectability,  and  worse  still,  securing  to  it  new  opportunity  and 
foothold  for  the  supremacy  which  it  openly  proclaims. 

In  ancient  days  the  candidate  was  robed  in  white,  while  at  the 
Capitol  and  in  the  Forum,  he  canvassed  the  people  for  their  votes. 
The  candidate  Nation,  which  is  not  ashamed  of  Slavery,  should 


59 

be  robed  in  black,  while  it  conducts  its  great  canvass  and  asks 
the  votes  of  the  Christian  Powers.  "  Hung  be  the  heavens  with 
black,  yield  day  to  night,"  as  the  outrage  proceeds  ;  for  the 
candidate  gravely  asks  the  international  Recognition  of  the 
claim  to  hold  property  in  man ;  to  sell  the  wife  away  from  the 
husband  ;  to  sell  the  child  away  from  the  parent ;  to  shut  the 
gates  of  knowledge ;  to  appropriate  all  .the  fruits  of  another's 
labor.  And  yet  the  candidate  proceeds  in  his  canvass — although 
all  history  declares  that  Slavery  is  essentially  barbarous,  and 
that  whatever  it  touches  it  changes  to  itself;  that  it  barba 
rizes  laws ;  barbarizes  business  ;  barbarizes  manners ;  barbarizes 
social  life,  and  makes  the  people  who  cherish  it  barbarians.  And 
still  the  candidate  proceeds — although  it  is  known  to  the  Christian 
Powers  that  the  partisans  of  Slavery  are  naturally  "  filibusters," 
always  apt  for  lawless  incursions  and  for  robbery ;  that,  during 
latter  years,  under  their  instigation  and  to  advance  their  preten 
sions,  expeditions,  identical  in  motive  with  the  present  Rebellion, 
were  let  loose  in  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  twice  against  Cuba,  and 
twice  also  against  Nicaragua,  breaking  the  peace  of  the  United 
States  and  threatening  the  repose  of  the  world,  so  that  Lopez 
and  Walker  were  the  predecessors  of  Beauregard  and  Jefferson 
Davis.  And  yet  the  candidate  proceeds — although  it  is  obvious 
that  the  Recognition  which  is  urged,  will  be  nothing  less  than  a 
solemn  sanction  by  the  Christian  Powers  of  Slavery  everywhere 
^throughout  the  new  jurisdiction,  whether  on  land  or  sea,  so  that 
every  ship,  which  is  a  part  of  the  floating  territory,  will  be  Slave 
Territory.  And  yet  with  the  phantasy  that  man  can  hold  property 
in  man  shooting  from  his  lips ;  with  the  shackle  and  lash  in  his 
hands  ;  with  Barbarism  on  his  forehead ;  with  Filibusterism  in  his 
recorded  life ;  and  with  Slavery  flying  in  his  flag  wherever  it 
floats  on  land  or  sea ;  the  candidate  clamors  for  Christian  Recog 
nition.  It  is  sad  to  think  that  there  has  been  delay  in  repelling 
the  insufferable  canvass.  "  Is  thy  servant  a  dog  that  he  should  do 
this  thing  ? "  It  is  not  necessary  to  be  a  Christian ;  it  is  sufficient 
to  be  a  man — in  order  to  detest  and  combat  such  an  accursed 
pretension. 

If  the  Recognition  of  a  de  facto  Power  was  a  duty  imposed 
upon  other  nations  by  International  Law,  there  would  be  no 
opportunity  for  objections,  founded  on  principle  or  policy.  But 
there  is  no  such  duty.  International  Law  leaves  to  each  nation, 
precisely  as  the  municipal  law  leaves  to  each  citizen,  what  com 
pany  to  keep  or  what  copartnership  to  form.  No  company  and 
no  copartnership  can  be  forced  upon  a  nation.  It  is  all  a  question 
of  free  choice  and  acceptance.  International  Law  on  this  head 
is  like  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  which  declares : 
"  New  States  may  be  admitted  by  the  Congress  into  this  Union." 
Not  must  but  may ;  it  being  in  the  discretion  of  Congress  to 
determine  whether  the  State  shall  be  admitted.  Accordingly,  in 


60 

the  exercise  of  this  discretion,  Congress  for  a  long  time  refused 
to  admit  Missouri  as  a  Slave  State.  And  now  the  old  Missouri 
Question,  in  a  more  outrageous  form,  on  a  grander  theatre,  "with 
monarchs  to  behold  the  swelling  scene," — is  presented  to  the  Chris 
tian  Powers  of  the  world.  If  it  were  right  to  exclude  Missouri, 
having  a  few  slaves  only  and  regarding  Slavery  merely  as  a 
temporary  condition,  it  must  be  right  to  exclude  a  pretended 
nation,  which  not  only  boasts  its  millions  of  slaves,  but  passion 
ately  proclaims  the  perpetuity  and  propagation  of  slavery  as  the 
cause  and  object  of  its  separate  existence. 

Practical  statesmen  have  always  treated  the  question  of  Recog 
nition  as  one  of  policy — to  be  determined  on  the  facts  of  the 
case — even  where  the  Power  was  de  facto  established ;  as 
appears  amply  in  the  debates  of  the  British  Parliament  on 
the  Recognition  of  Spanish  America.  If  we  go  behind  the 
practical  statesmen  and  consult  the  earliest  oracles  of  Interna 
tional  Law,  we  shall  find  that,  according  to  their  most  approved 
words,  not  only  may  Recognition  be  refused,  but  there  are 
considerations  of  duty  this  way  which  cannot  be  evaded.  It  is 
not  enough  that  a  pretender  has  the  form  of  a  Commonwealth. 
'  A  people,"  says  Cicero,  in  a  definition  copied  by  most  jurists, 
"is  not  every  body  of  men  howsoever  congregated,  but  a  gathered 
multitude,  associated  under  the  sanction  oj  justice  and  for  the 
common  good" — Juris  consensu  et  utilitalis  communione  sociatus. 
(De  Repub.  Lib.  i.,  25.)  And  again  he  goes  so  far  as  to  say,  in 
the  Republic,  "  when  the  king  is  unjust,  or  the  aristocracy,  or 
the  people  itself,  the  Commonwealth  is  not  vicious  but  null."  Of 
course  a  Commonwealth  that  was  null  would  not  be  recognized. 
But  Grotius,  who  speaks  always  with  the  magistral  voice  of  learning 
and  genius,  has  given  the  just  conclusion,  when  he  presents  the 
distinction  between  a  body  of  men,  who  being  already  a  Recog 
nized  Commonwealth,  are  guilty  of  systematic  crime,  as,  for 
instance,  of  piracy,  and  another  body  of  men,  who,  not  yet  Recog 
nized  as  a  Commonwealth,  are  banded  together  for  the  sake  of 
systematic  crime — sceleris  causa  coeunt.  (De  Jure  Belli,  ac  Pads, 
Lib.  iii.,  cap.  3,  §  2.)  The  latter,  by  a  happy  discrimination,  he 
places  beyond  the  pale  of  honor  or  fellowship;  nam  hi  criminis 
causd  sociantur.  But  when  before  in  all  history,  have  creatures, 
wearing  the  human  form,  proclaimed  the  criminal  principle  of 
their  association,  with  the  audacity  of  our  Slave-mongers  ? 

It  might  be  argued,  on  grounds  of  reason  and  authority  even, 
that  the  declared  principle  of  the  pretended  Power,  was  a  violation 
of  International  Law.  Eminent  magistrates  have  solemnly  ruled, 
that,  in  the  development  of  civilization,  the  slave-trade  has 
become  illegal,  by  a  law  higher  than  any  statute.  Sir  William 
Grant,  one  of  the  ornaments  of  the  British  bench,  whose  elegant 
mind  was  governed  always  by  practical  sense,  adjudged  that  "  this 
trade  c&nuot,abslractedly  speaking, have  any  legitimate  existence," 


61 

(Amedie,  2  Acton  R.  240^) ;  and  our  own  great  authority,  Mr. 
Justice  Story,  in  a  remarkable  judgment,  declared  himself  con 
strained  "  to  consider  the  trade  against  the  universal  law  of 
society"  (La,  Jeune  Eugenie,  2  Mason  R.  451.)  But  the  argu 
ments  which  are  strong  against  any  Recognition  of  the  slave- 
trade,  are  strong  also  against  any  Recognition  of  Slavery  itself. 

It  is  not,  however,  necessary,  in  the  determination  of  present 
duty,  to  assume  that  Slavery,  or  the  slave-trade,  is  positively  for 
bidden  by  existing  International  Law.  It  is  enough  to  show, 
that  according  to  the  spirit  of  that  sovereign  law  which  "  sits 
empress,  crowning  good,  repressing  ill,"  and  according  also  to 
those  commanding  principles  of  justice  and  humanity,  which 
cannot  be  set  at  naught  without  a  shock  to  human  nature  itself, 
so  foul  a  wrong  as  Slavery  can  receive  no  voluntary  support  from 
the  Commonwealth  of  Nations.  It  is  not  a  question  of  law  but 
a  question  of  Morality.  The  Rule  of  Law  is  sometimes  less  com 
prehensive  than  the  Rule  of  Morality,  so  that  the  latter  may 
positively  condemn  what  the  former  silently  tolerates.  But  within 
its  own  domain  the  Rule  of  Morality  cannot  be  less  authoritative 
than  the  Rule  of  Law  itself.  It  is,  indeed,  nothing  less  than  the 
Law  of  Nature  and  also  the  Law  of  God.  If  we  listen  to  a 
Heathen  teacher  we  shall  confess  its  binding  power.  u  Law," 
says  Cicero,  "  is  the  highest  reason  implanted  in  nature,  which 
prescribes  those  things  which  ought  to  be  done,  and  forbids  the 
contrary" — (DeLegibus,  Lib.  i.,  cap.  5.)  This  law  is  an  essential 
part  of  International  Law,  as  is  also  Christianity  itself,  and, 
where  treaties  fail  and  usage  is  silent,  it  is  the  only  law  between 
nations.  Jurists  of  all  ages  and  countries  have  delighted  to 
acknowledge  its  authority,  if  it  spoke  only  in  the  still  small  voice 
of  conscience.  A  celebrated  professor  of  Germany  in  our  own 
day,  Savigny,  whose  name  is  honored  by  the  students  of  juris 
prudence  everywhere,  touches  upon  this  monitor  of  nations,  when 
he  declares  that  u  there  may  exist  between  different  nations  a 
common  consciousness  of  Right  similar  to  that  which  engenders 
the  Positive  Law  of  particular  nations." — (System  des  heutigen 
Romischen  Rechts,  L.  vii.,  cap  11,  §  11.)  But  this  common  con 
sciousness  of  right  is  identical  with  that  law,  which,  according  to 
Cicero,  is  "  the  highest  reason,  implanted  in  nature."  Such  is 
the  Rule  of  Morality. 

The  Rule  of  Morality  differs  from  the  Rule  of  Law  in  this 
respect:  that  the  former  finds  its  support  in  the  human  con 
science  ;  the  latter  in  the  sanctions  of  public  force.  But  moral 
power  prevails  with  a  good  man  as  much  as  if  it  were  physical.  I 
know  no  different  rule  for  a  good  nation  than  for  a  good  man. 
I  am  sure  that  a  good  nation  will  not  do  what  a  good  man  would 
scorn  to  do. 

But  there  is  a  rule  of  prudence  superadded  to  the  Rule  of 
Morality.  Grotius  in  discussing  treaties  does  not  forget  the 


62 

wisdom  of  Solomon,  who,  in  not  a  few  places,  warns  against 
fellowship  with  the  wicked,  although  he  adds,  that  these  were 
maxims  of  prudence  and  not  of  law. — (Lib.  ii.,  cap.  15,  §  9.) 
And  he  reminds  us  of  the  saying  of  Alexander,  "  that  those 
grievously  offend  who  enter  the  service  of  Barbarians."  (76w/, 
§  11.)  But  better  still  are  the  words  of  the  wise  historian  of 
classical  antiquity,  who  enjoins  upon  a  Commonwealth  the  duty  of 
considering  carefully,  when  sued  for  assistance,  "  whether  what  is 
sought  is  sufficiently  pious,  safe,  glorious,  or  on  the  other  hand 
unbecoming;" — (Sallust  Fragm.,  iv.  2.)  and  also  those  words 
of  Scripture  which  after  rebuking  an  alliance  with  Ahab,ask  with 
scorn,  "  Shouldst  thou  help  the  ungodly  ?  "  (2  Chro.ii.,  xiv.  2.) 
If  the  claim  for  Recognition  be  brought  to  the  touch-stone  of 
these  principles,  it  will  be  easy  to  decide  it. 

Vain  is  it  to  urge  the  Practice  of  Nations  in  its  behalf.  Never 
before  in  history  has  such  a  candidacy  been  put  forward  in  the 
name  of  Slavery ;  and  the  terrible  outrage  is  aggravated  by  the 
Christian  light  which  surrounds  it.  This  is  not  the  age  of  dark 
ness.  But  even  in  the  Dark  Ages,  when  the  Slave-mongers  of 
Algiers  "  had  reduced  themselves  to  a  government  or  state,"  the 
renowned  Louis  IX.  "  treated  them  as  a  nest  of  wasps."  (1  Phil- 
limore,  p.  80.)  Afterwards  but  slowly  they  obtained  "  the  rights 
of  legation  "  and  "  the  reputation  of  a  government ; "  but  at  last, 
weary  of  their  criminal  pretensions,  the  aroused  vengeance  of 
Great  Britain  and  France  blotted  out  this  Power  from  the  list  of 
nations.  Louis  XL,  who  has  been  described  as  "  the  sovereign 
who  best  understood  his  interest,"  indignant  at  Richard  III.  of 
England,  who  had  murdered  two  infants  in  the  tower,  and  usurped 
the  crown,  sent  back  his  ambassadors  without  holding  any  inter 
course  with  them.  This  is  a  suggestive  precedent ;  for  the  parricide 
usurper  of  England  had  never  murdered  so  many  infants,  or 
usurped  so  much  as  the  pretended  Slave  Power,  which  is  strangely 
tolerated  by  the  sagacious  sovereign  who  sits  on  the  throne  of 
Louis  XI.  But  it  is  not  necessary  to  go  so  far  in  history  ;  nor 
to  dwell  on  the  practice  of  nations  in  withholding  or  conceding 
Recognition.  The  whole  matter  is  stated  by  Burke  with  his 
customary  power  : 

"  In  the  case  of  a  divided  kingdom  by  the  Law  of  Nations,  Great  Britain, 
like  every  other  Power,  is  free  to  take  any  part  she  pleases.  She  may 
decline,  with  more  or  less  formality,  according  to  her  discretion,  to  acknowl 
edge  this  new  system  ;  or  she  may  recognize  it  as  a  government  de  facto, 
setting  aside  all  discussion  of  its  original  legality,  and  considering  the 
ancient  monarchy  as  at  an  end.  The  Law  of  Nations  leaves  our  court 
open  to  its  choice.  The  declaration  of  a  new  species  of  government  on  new 
principles  is  a  real  crisis  in  the  politics  of  Europe."  (Thoughts  on  French 
Affairs,  1791.) 


63 

Another  eloquent  publicist,  Sir  James  Mackintosh,  while  urging 
on  Parliament  the  Recognition  of  Spanish  America,  says,  "  The 
reception  of  a  new  State  into  the  society  of  civilized  nations  by 
those  acts  which  amount  to  recognition  is  a  proceeding,  which,  as 
it  has  no  legal  character,  is  purely  of  a  moral  nature ;  "  and  he 
proceeds  to  argue  that  since  England  is  "  the  only  anciently  free 
State  in  the  world,  for  her  to  refuse  her  moral  aid  to  communities 
struggling  for  liberty,  is  an  act  of  unnatural  harshness."  (Mack 
intosh's  Works,  Yol.  iii.  p.  438,)  Thus  does  he  vindicate  Recog 
nition  for  the  sake  of  Freedom.  How  truly  he  would  have 
repelled  any  Recognition  for  the  sake  of  Slavery,  let  his  life 
testify. 

But,  perhaps,  no  better  testimony  to  the  practice  of  nations  can 
be  found  than  in  the  words  of  Vattel,  whose  work,  presenting  the 
subject  in  a  familiar  form,  has  done  more,  during  the  last  century, 
to  fashion  opinion  on  the  Law  of  Nations  than  any  other  authority. 
Here  it  is  briefly : — 

"  If  there  be  any  nation  that  makes  an  open  profession  of  trampling  justice 
under  foot,  of  despising  and  violating  the  right  of  others,  whenever  it  finds 
an  opportunity,  the  interest  of  human  society  will  authorize  all  others  to 
humble  and  chastise  it."  (Book  ii.,  cap.  4,  §  70.)  "  To  form  and  support 
an  unjust  pretension  is  to  do  an  injury  not  only  to  him  who  is  interested  in 
this  pretension,  but  to  mock  at  justice  in  general  and  to  injure  all  nations." 
(Ibid.)  "  He  who  assists  an  odious  tyrant — he  who  declares  for  an  unjust 
and  rebellious  people — violates  his  duty."  (Ibid,  §  56.)  "As  to  those 
monsters,  who  under  the  title  of  sovereigns,  render  themselves  the  scourges 
and  horror  of  the  human  race,  they  are  savage  beasts,  whom  every  brave 
man  may  justly  exterminate  from  the  face  of  the  earth."  (Ibid.)  "  But  if 
the  maxims  of  a  religion  tend  to  establish  it  by  violence  and  to  oppress  all 
those  who  will  not  embrace  it,  the  law  of  nature  forbids  us  to  favor  that 
religion  or  to  contract  any  unnecessary  alliance  with  its  inhuman  followers, 
and  the  common  safety  of  mankind  invites  them  rather  to  enter  into  an 
alliance  against  such  a  people ;  to  repress  such  outrageous  fanatics,  who 
disturb  the  public  repose  and  threaten  all  nations."  (Ibid,  Book  ii.,  cap.  12, 
§  162.) 

Yainly  do  you  urge  this  Recognition  on  any  principle  of  the 
Comity  of  Nations.  This  is  an  expansive  term  into  which  enters 
much  of  the  refinements,  amenities  and  hospitalities  of  Civiliza 
tion,  and  also  something  of  the  obligations  of  moral  duty.  But 
where  an  act  is  prejudicial  to  national  interests  or  contrary  to 
national  policy  or  questionable  in  morals,  it  cannot  be  commended 
by  any  considerations  of  courtesy.  There  is  a  paramount  duty 
which  must  not  be  betrayed  by  a  kiss.  For  the  sake  of  Comity,  acts 
of  good  will  and  friendship  not  required  by  law  are  performed 
between  nations ;  but  an  English  Court  has  authoritatively 
declared  that  this  principle  cannot  prevail  "  where  it  violates  the 
law  of  our  own  country,  the  Law  of  Nature  or  the  Law  of  God ;" 


64: 

and  on  this  adamantine  ground  it  was  decided,  that  an  American 
tlave,  who  had  found  shelter  on  board  of  a  British  man-of-war, 
could  not  be  recognized  as  a  slave.  (Forbes  v.  Cochrane,  2  Barn, 
and  Ores.,  R.  448.)  But  the  same  principle  would  prevail  against 
the  Recognition  of  a  new  Slave  Nation. 

Vainly  do  you  urge  this  Recognition  on  any  reason  of  Peace. 
There  can  be  no  peace  founded  on  injustice ;  and  any  Recognition 
is  an  injustice  which  will  cry  aloud  resounding  through  the 
universe.  You  may  seem  to  have  peace ;  but  it  will  be  only  a 
smothered  war,  destined  to  break  forth  in  wrar  more  direful  than 
before. 

Thus  is  every  argument  for  Recognition  repelled,  whether  it  be 
under  the  sounding  words,  Practice  of  Nations — Comity  of  Nations 
— or  Peace.  There  is  nothing  in  Practice,  nothing  in  Comity, 
nothing  in  Peace,  which  is  not  against  any  such  shameful  sur 
render. 

But  applying  the  principles  which  have  been  already  set 
forth  ;  —  assuming  what  cannot  be  denied,  —  that  every  Power  is 
free  to  refuse  Recognition  ;  assuming  that  it  is  not  every  body  of 
men  that  can  be  considered  a  Commonwealth,  but  only  "  those 
associated  under  the  sanction  of  justice  and  for  the  common  good ; " 
that  men  "  banded  together  for  the  sake  of  systematic  crime  "  can 
not  be  considered  a  Commonwealth ; — assuming  that  every  member 
of  the  Family  of  Nations  will  surely  obey  the  Rule  of  Morality  ; 
that  it  will  "  shun  fellowship  with  the  wicked ; "  that  it  will  not 
u  enter  into  the  service  of  Barbarians  ; "  that  it  will  avoid  what  is 
"unbecoming"  and  do  that  only  which  is  "pious,  safe  and 
glorious ; "  and  that  above  all  things  it  will  not  enter  into  an 
alliance  "  to  help  the  ungodly  ;"  assuming  these  things  —  every 
such  member  must  reject  with  indignation  a  new  pretension  whose 
declared  principle  of  association  is  so  essentially  wicked.  Here 
there  can  be  no  question.  The  case  is  plain ;  nor  is  any  language 
of  contumely  or  scorn  too  strong  to  express  the  irrepressible 
repugnance  to  such  a  pretension,  which,  like  vice,  "  to  be  hated 
needs  only  to  be  seen."  Surely  there  can  be  no  Christian  Power 
which  will  not  leap  to  expose  it,  saying  with  irresistible  voice : 
(1.)  No  neiv  sanction  of  Slavery.  (2.)  No  new  quickening  of 
Slavery  in  its  active  and  aggressive  Barbarism.  (^3.)  No  new 
encouragement  to  the  "  filibusters  "  engendered  by  Slavery.  (4.) 
No  new  creation  of  Slave  territory.  (5.)  No  new  creation  of  a 
Slave  Navy.  (6.)  No  new  Slave  Nation.  (7.)  No  installation 
of  Slavery  as  a  new  Civilization.  But  all  this  Litany  will  fail,  if 
Recognition  prevails  —  from  which  Good  Lord  deliver  us !  Nor 
will  this  be  the  end  of  the  evil. 

Slavery,  through  the  new  Power,  will  take  its  place  in  the 
Parliament  of  mankind,  with  all  the  immunities  of  an  Indepen 
dent  Nation,  ready  always  to  uphold  and  advance  itself,  and 
organized  as  an  unrelenting  Propaganda  of  the  new  'Faith.  A 


65 

Power,  having  its  inspiration  in  such  a  Barbarism,  must  be  essen 
tially  barbarous  ;  founded  on  the  asserted  right  to  whip  women 
and  to  sell  children,  it  must  assume  a  character  of  disgusting 
hardihood,  and,  openly  professing  a  determination  to  revolutionize 
the  Public  Opinion  of  the  world,  it  must  be  in  open  schism  with 
Civilization  itself,  so  that  all  its  influences  will  be  wild,  savage, 
brutal,  and  all  its  offspring  kindred  in  character. 

Pard  genders  pard ;  from  tigers  tigers  spring ; 
No  dove  is  hatched  beneath  the  vulture's  wing. 

Such  a  Power,  from  its  very  nature,  must  be  Despotism  at  home 
"  tempered  only  by  assassination,"  with  cotton-fields  instead  of 
Siberia,  while  abroad  it  must  be  aggressive,  dangerous  and  revolt 
ing,  in  itself  a  Magnum  Latrocinium,  whose  fellowship  can  have 
nothing  but  "  the  filthiness  of  Evil,"  and  whose  very  existence  will 
bean  intolerable  nuisance.  When  Dante,  in  the  vindictive  judgment 
which  he  hurled  against  his  own  Florence,  called  it  bordello,  he 
did  not  use  a  term  too  strong  for  the  mighty  House  of  111  Fame 
which  the  Christian  Powers  are  now  asked  for  the  first  time  to 
license.  Such  must  be  the  character  of  the  new  Power.  But 
though  only  a  recent  wrong,  and  pleading  no  prescription,  the 
illimitable  audacity  of  its  nature  will  hesitate  at  nothing  ;  nor  is 
there  any  thing  offensive  or  detestable  which  it  will  not  absorb 
into  itself.  It  will  be  an  Ishmael  with  its  hand  against  every  man. 
It  will  be  a  brood  of  Harpies  defiling  all  which  it  cannot  steal. 
It  will  be  the  one-eyed  Cyclop  of  nations,  seeing  only  through 
Slavery,  spurning  all  as  fools  who  do  not  see  likewise,  and  bellow 
ing  forth  in  savage  egotism  : 

Know  then,  we  Cyclops  are  a  race  above 
Those  air -bred  people  and  their  goat-nursed  Jove  ; 
And  learn  our  power  proceeds  with  thee  and  thine 
Not  as  Jove  wills,  but  as  ourselves  incline. 

Or  worse  still,  it  will  be  the  soulless  monster  of  Frankenstein — the 
wretched  creation  of  mortal  science  without  God — endowed  with 
life  and  nothing  else — forever  raging  madly,  the  scandal  to  human 
ity — powerful  only  for  evil — whose  destruction  will  be  essential  to 
the  peace  of  the  world. 

Who  can  welcome  such  a  creation  ?  Who  can  consort  with  it  ? 
There  is  something  loathsome  in  the  idea.  There  is  contamina 
tion  even  in  the  thought.  If  you  live  with  the  lame,  says  the  ancient 
proverb,  you  will  learn  to  limp  ;  if  you  keep  in  the  kitchen  you  will 
smell  of  smoke  ;  if  you  touch  pitch  you  will  be  defiled.  But  what 
lameness  so  pitiful  as  that  of  this  pretended  Power  ;  what  smoke  so 
foul  as  its  breath  ;  what  pitch  so  defiling  as  its  touch  ?  It  is  an 
Oriental  saying  that  a  cistern  of  rose-water  will  become  impure, 
if  a  dog  be  dropt  into  it ;  but  a  continent  of  rose-water  with 


66 

Rebel  Slave-mongers  would  be  changed  into  a  vulgar  puddle. 
Imagine,  if  you  please,  whatever  is  most  disgusting,  and  this 
pretended  Power  is  more  disgusting  still.  Naturalists  report 
that  the  pike  will  Swallow  any  thing  except  the  toad  ;  but  this  it 
cannot  do.  The  experiment  has  been  tried,  and,  though  this  fish. 
in  its  unhesitating  voracity,  always  gulps  whatever  is  thrown  to 
it,  yet  invariably  it  spews  this  nuisance  from  its  throat.  But  our 
Slave-monger  pretension  is  worse  than  the  toad ;  and  yet  there 
are  Foreign  Nations  which,  instead  of  spewing  it  forth,  are  already 
turning  it  like  a  precious  morsel  on  the  tongue. 

But  there  is  yet  another  ground  on  which  I  make  this  appeal. 
It  is  a  part  of  the  triumphs  of  Civilization,  that  no  Nation  can 
act  for  itself  alone.  Whatever  it  does  for  good  or  for  evil, 
affects  all  the  rest.  Therefore  a  Nation  cannot  forget  its  obli 
gations  to  others.  Especially  does  International  Law,  when 
it  declares  the  absolute  Equality  of  Independent  Nations, 
cast  upon  all  Nations  the  duty  of  considering  well  how  this 
privilege  shall  be  bestowed,  so  that  the  welfare  of  all  may  be 
best  upheld.  But  the  whole  Family  of  Nations  would  be 
degraded  by  admitting  this  new  pretension  to  any  toleration,  much 
less  to  any  equality.  There  can  be  no  reason  for  such  admission  ; 
for  it  can  bring  nothing  to  the  general  weal.  Civil  society  is 
created  for  safety  and  tranquillity.  Nations  come  together  and 
fraternize  for  the  common  good.  But  this  hateful  pretension  can 
do  nothing  but  evil  for  civil  society  at  home  or  for  nations  in  their 
relations  with  each  other.  It  can  show  no  title  to  Recognition  ; 
no  passport  for  its  travels ;  no  old  creation.  It  is  all  new ;  and 
here  let  me  borrow  the  language  of  Burke  on  another  occasion  ; 
"  It  is  not  a  new  Power  of  an  old  kind.  It  is  a  new  Power  of  a 
new  species.  When  such  a  questionable  shape  is  to  be  admitted 
for  the  first  time  into  the  brotherhood  of  Christendom,  it  is  not 
a  mere  matter  of  idle  curiosity  to  consider  how  far  it  is  in  its 
nature  alliable  with  the  rest."  {Regicide  Peace,  2d  Letter.) 
The  greatest  of  corporations  is  a  nation  ;  the  sublimest  of  all 
associations  is  that  which  is  composed  of  nations,  independent 
and  equal,  knit  together  in  the  bonds  of  peaceful  Fraternity  as 
the  great  Christian  Commonwealth.  The  Slave-mongers  may  be 
a  corporation  in  fact;  but  no  such  corporation  can  find  a  place  in 
that  sublime  Commonwealth.  As  well  admit  the  Thugs,  whose 
first  article  of  faith  is  to  kill  a  stranger — or  the  Buccaneers,  those 
old  "  brothers  of  the  coast,"  who  plundered  on  the  sea — or  better 
still  revive  the  old  Kingdom  of  the  Assassins,  where  the  king  was 
an  assassin,  surrounded  by  counsellors  and  generals  who  were 
assassins,  and  all  his  subjects  were  assassins.  Or  yet  again  better 
at  once  and  openly  recognize  Anti-Christ,  who  is  the  supreme  and 
highest  impersonation  of  the  Slave-Power. 

Amidst  the  general  degradation  tl.at  would  follow  such  an 
obeisance  to  Slavery,  there  are  two  Christian  Powers  that  would 


67 

appear  in  sad  and  shameful  eminence.  I  refer  to  Great  Britain — 
the  declared  "  protectress  of  the  African  race," — and  to  France,  the 
declared  champion  of  "  ideas," — who,  from  the  very  largess  of  their 
pledges,  are  so  situated,  that  they  cannot  desert  the  good  old 
cause  and  turn  their  faces  against  civilization  without  a  criminal 
tergiversation,  which  no  mountain  of  diplomacy  can  cover. 
Where  then  would  be  British  devotion  to  the  African  race  ? 
Where  then  would  be  French  devotion  to  ideas? — Remem 
bered  only  to  point  a  tale  and  show  how  nations  had  fallen. 
Great  Britain  knows  less  than  France  of  national  vicissitudes ; 
but  such  an  act  of  wrong  would  do  something  in  its  influence  to 
equalize  the  conditions  of  these  two  nations.  Better  for  the  fast- 
anchored  isle  that  it  should  be  sunk  beneath  the  sea,  with  its 
cathedrals,  its  castles,  its  fields  of  glory,  Runnymede,  West 
minster  Hall  and  the  home  of  Shakspeare,  than  that  it  should  do 
this  thing.  In  other  days  England  has  valiantly  striven  against 
Slavery  ;  and  now  she  proposes  to  surrender,  at  a  moment  when 
more  can  be  done  than  ever  before  against  the  monster  wherever 
it  shows  its  head,  for  Slavery  everywhere  has  its  neck  in  this 
Rebellion.  In  other  days  France  has  valiantly  striven  for  ideas; 
and  now  she  too  proposes  to  surrender,  although  all  that  she  has 
professed  to  have  at  heart  is  involved  in  the  doom  of  Slavery, 
which  a  word  from  her  might  hasten  beyond  recall.  But  it  is  m 
England,  more  even  than  in  France,  that  the  strongest  sentiment 
for  Rebel  Slave-mongers  has  been  manifest,  constituting  a  moral 
mania,  which  menaces  a  pact  and  concordat  with  the  Rebellion 
itself, — as  when  an  early  Pope,  the  head  of  the  Christian  Church, 
did  not  hesitate  to  execute  a  piratical  convention  with  a  pagan 
enemy  of  the  Christian  name.  It  only  remains  that  the  new 
coalition  should  be  signed,  in  order  to  consummate  the  unutterable 
degradation.  It  was  the  fate  of  JSdipus,  in  the  saddest  story  of 
antiquity,  to  wed  his  own  mother  without  knowing  it ;  but 
England  will  wed  the  Slave-Power  with  full  knowledge  that  the 
relation,  if  not  incestuous,  is  vile.  The  contracting  parties  will 
be  the  Queen  of  England,  and  Jefferson  Davis,  once  the  patron  of 
"  repudiation,"  now  the  chief  of  Rebel  Slave-mongers.  It  will 
only  remain  for  this  virtuous  Lady,  whose  pride  it  is  to  seek 
justice  always,  to  bend  in  pitiful  abjectness  to  receive  as  a  pleni 
potentiary  at  her  Court  the  author  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Bill. 

A  Slave-monger  Power  will  take  its  seat  at  the  great  council- 
board,  to  jostle  thrones  and  benches,  while  it  overshadows 
Humanity.  Its  foul  attorneys,  reeking  with  Slavery,  will  have 
their  letter  of  license,  as  the  ambassadors  of  Slavery,  to  rove 
from  court  to  court,  over  foreign  carpets,  poisoning  that  air  which 
has  been  nobly  pronounced  too  pure  for  a  slave  to  breathe.  Alas ! 
for  England,  vowed  a  thousand  times  to  the  protection  of  the  African 
race  and  knit  perpetually  by  her  best  renown  to  this  sacred 
loyalty,  now  plunging  into  adulterous  honey-moon  with  Slavery — 


68 

recognizing  the  new  and  impious  Protestantism  against  Liberty 
itself — and  wickedly  becoming  tbe  Defender  of  the  Faith  even 
as  professed  by  Rebel  Slave-mongers.  Alas  !  for  England's  Queen 
— woman  and  mother — carried  off  from  the  cause  of  Wilberforce 
and  Clarkson  to  sink  into  unseemly  dalliance  with  the  scourgers 
of  women  and  the  auctioneers  of  children ;  for  a  "  stain,"  deeper 
than  that  which  aroused  the  anguish  of  Maria  Theresa,  is  settling 
upon  her  reign.  Alas !  for  that  Royal  Consort,  humane  and 
great,  whose  dying  voice  was  given  to  assuage  the  temper  of  that 
ministerial  despatch  by  which,  in  an  evil  hour,  England  was  made 
to  strike  hands  with  Rebel  Slave-mongers  ;  for  the  councillor  is 
needed  now  to  save  the  land  which  he  adorned  from  an  act  of 
inexpiable  shame. 

And  for  all  this  sickening  immorality  I  hear  but  one  declared 
apology.  It  is  said  that  the  Union  permitted  and  still  permits 
Slavery ;  therefore  Foreign  Nations  may  recognize  Rebel  Slave- 
mongers  as  a  new  Power.  But  here  is  the  precise  question. 
England  is  still  in  diplomatic  relations  with  Spain,  and  was  only 
a  short  time  ago  in  diplomatic  relations  with  Brazil,  both  per 
mitting  Slavery ;  but  these  two  Powers  are  not  new ;  they  are 
already  established ;  there  is  no  question  of  their  Recognition ; 
nor  do  they  pretend  to  found  empire  on  Slavery.  There  is  no 
reason  in  any  relations  with  them  why  a  new  Power,  with  Slavery 
as  its  declared  "  corner-stone,"  whose  gospel  is  Slavery  and  whose 
evangelists  are  Slave-mongers,  should  be  recognized  in  the  Family 
of  Nations.  If  Ireland  were  in  triumphant  rebellion  against  the 
British  Queen,  complaining  of  rights  denied,  it  would  be  our  duty 
to  recognize  her  as  an  Independent  Power ;  but  if  Ireland 
rebelled,  with  the  declared  object  of  establishing  a  new  Power, 
which  should  be  nothing  less  than  a  giant  felony  and  a  nuisance 
to  the  world,  then  it  would  be  our  duty  to  spurn  the  infamous 
pretension,  and  no  triumph  of  the  Rebellion  could  change  this 
plain  and  irresistible  necessity.  And  yet,  in  the  face  of  this  com 
manding  rule,  we  are  told  to  expect  the  Recognition  of  Rebel 
Slave-mongers. 

But  an  aroused  Public  Opinion,  "  the  world's  collected  will" 
and  returning  reason  in  England  and  France  will  see  to  it  that 
Civilization  is  saved  from  this  shock  and  the  nations  themselves 
from  the  terrible  retribution  which  sooner  or  later  must  surely 
attend  it.  No  Power  can  afford  to  lift  itself  before  mankind  and 
openly  vote  a  new  and  untrammelled  charter  to  injustice  and 
cruelty.  God  is  an  unsleeping  avenger ;  nor  can  armies,  fleets, 
bulwarks  or  "  towers  along  the  steep  "  prevail  against  his  mighty 
anger.  There  is  but  one  word  which  the  Christian  Powers  can  utter 
to  any  application  for  this  unholy  Recognition.  It  is  simply  and 
austerely  "  No,"  with  an  emphasis  that  shall  silence  argument 
and  extinguish  hope  itself.  And  this  Proclamation  should  go 
forth  swiftly.  Every  moment  of  hesitation  is  a  moment  of  apos- 


69 

tacy,  casting  its  lengthening  shadow  of  dishonor.  Not  to  dis 
courage  is  to  encourage  ;  not  to  blast  is  to  bless.  Let  this  simple 
word  be  uttered  and  Slavery  will  shrink  away  with  a  mark  on  its 
forehead,  like  Cain — a  perpetual  vagabond — without  welcome  or 
fellowship,  so  that  it  can  only  die.  Let  this  simple  word  be 
uttered  and  the  audacious  Slave-Power  will  be  no  better  than  the 
Flying-  Dutchman,  that  famous  craft,  which,  darkened  by  piracy 
and  murder,  was  doomed  to  a  perpetual  cruise,  unable  to  enter  a 
port; 

Faint  and  despairing  in  their  watery  bier, 
To  every  friendly  shore  the  sailors  steer ; 
Repelled  from  port  to  port  they  sue  in  vain, 
And  track  with  slow,  unsteady  sail  the  main, 
Unblest  of  God  and  man  !     Till  time  shall  end 
Its  view  strange  horror  to  the  storm  shall  lend. 

IT-] 

No    CONCESSION    OF    OCEAN    BELLIGERENCY   WITHOUT   A    PRIZE 
COURT; — ESPECIALLY  TO  REBEL  SLATE-MONGERS. 

Too  much  have  I  spoken  for  your  patience,  if  not  enough  for 
the  cause.  But  there  is  yet  another  topic  which  I  have  reserved 
to  the  last,  because  logically  it  belongs  there,  or  at  least  it  can  be 
best  considered  in  the  gathered  light  of  the  previous  discussion. 
Its  immediate,  practical  interest  is  great.  I  refer  to  the  conces 
sion  of  Belligerent  Rights,  being  the  first  stage  to  Independence. 
Great  Britain  led  the  way  in  acknowledging  the  embryo  gov 
ernment  of  Rebel  Slave-mongers  as  Belligerents  on  sea  as  well  as 
on  land,  and,  by  a  Proclamation  of  the  Queen,  declared  her 
neutrality  between  the  two  parties,  thus  lifting  the  embryo  gov 
ernment  of  Rebel  Slave-mongers,  which  was  nothing  else  than 
organized  and  aggressive  Slavery,  to  an  Equality  on  sea  as  well 
as  on  land  with  its  ancient  ally,  the  National  Government.  Here 
was  a  blunder  if  not  a  crime — not  merely  in  the  alacrity  with 
which  it  was  done  but  in  doing  it  at  all.  It  was  followed  imme 
diately  by  France,  and  then  by  Spain,  Holland  and  Brazil.  The 
concession  of  Belligerent  Rights  on  land  was  only  a  name  and 
nothing  more  ;  therefore  I  say  nothing  about  it.  But  the  conces 
sion  of  Belligerent  Rights  on  the  Ocean  is  of  a  widely  different 
character,  and  the  two  reasons  against  the  Recognition  of  the 
independence  of  the  embryo  government  are  applicable  also  to 
this  concession.  First,  The  embryo  government  has  no  maritime 
or  naval  Belligerent  Rights,  de  facto;  and  secondly,  an  embryo 
government  of  Rebel  Slave-mongers  cannot  have  the  character  de 
facto  which  would  justify  the  concession  of  maritime  or  naval 
Belligerency;  so  that  could  the  concession  be  vindicated  on 
the  first  ground,  it  must  fail  on  the  second. 

The  concession  of  Ocean  Belligerency  is  a  Letter  of  License 
from  the  consenting  Powers  to  every  Slave-monger  cruiser,  or 


70 

rather  it  is  the  countersign  of  these  Powers  to  the  commission  of 
every  such  cruiser.  Without  such  countersign  the  Slave-monger 
cruiser  would  be  an  outlaw,  with  no  right  to  enter  a  single  foreign 
port.  The  declaration  of  Belligerency  gives  to  him  legal  compe 
tency  and  admits  him  to  testify  by  flag  and  arms.  Without  such 
competency  he  could  have  no  flag,  and  no  right  to  bear  arms  on 
the  ocean.  Burke  sententiously  describes  it  as  an  "  intermediate 
Treaty  which  puts  rebels  in  possession  of  the  Law  of  Nations" 
And  this  is  plainly  true. 

The  magnitude  of  this  concession  may  be  seen  in  three  aspects  ; 
first,  in  the  immunities  which  it  confers ;  putting  an  embryo 
government  of  Rebel  Slave-mongers  on  an  equality  with  established 
governments,  making  its  cruisers  lawful  instead  of  piratical, 
and  opening  to  them  boundless  facilities  at  sea  and  in  port,  so  that 
they  may  obtain  supplies  and  even  hospitality.  Secondly,  in  the 
degradation  that  it  fastens  upon  the  National  Government,  which 
is  condemned  to  see  its  ships  treated  on  an  equality  with  the  ships 
of  Rebel  Slave-mongers,  and  also  the  just  rule  of  "  neutrality  " 
between  Belligerent  Powers  called  in  to  fetter  its  activity  against  a 
giant  felony.  And  thirdly,  it  may  be  seen  in  the  disturbance  to 
commerce  which  it  sanctions,  by  letting  loose  lawless  sea-rovers, 
armed  with  Belligerent  Rights — including  the  right  of  search 
— whose  natural  recklessness  is  left  unbridled,  and  without 
any  remedy  even  from  diplomatic  intercourse.  The  ocean  is  a 
common  highway ;  but  on  this  account  it  is  for  the  interest  of  all 
who  share  it,  that  it  should  not  be  disturbed  by  predatory 
hostilities.  Such  a  concession  should  be  made  with  the  greatest 
caution,  and  then,  only  under  the  necessity  of  the  case,  on  the 
overwhelming  authority  of  the  fact ;  for,  from  beginning  to  end, 
it  is  simply  a  question  of  fact,  absolutely  dependent  on  those 
conditions  and  prerequisites  without  which  Ocean  Belligerency 
cannot  exist. 

As  a  general  rule,  Belligerent  Rights  are  conceded  only  where 
a  rebel  government,  or  contending  party  in  a  civil  war,  has 
acquired  such  form  and  body,  that,  for  the  time  being,  within 
certain  limits,  it  is  sovereign  de  facto,  so  far  at  least  as  to 
command  troops  and  to  administer  justice.  The  concession  of 
Belligerency  is  the  Recognition  of  such  limited  sovereignty,  which 
bears  the  same  relation  to  acknowledged  Independence  as  gristle 
bears  to  bone.  It  is  obvious  that  such  sovereignty  may  exist 
de  facto  on  land  without  existing  de  facto  on  the  ocean.  It  may 
prevail  in  armies  and  yet  fail  in  navies.  In  short  the  fact  may 
be  one  way  on  land,  and  the  other  way  on  the  ocean ;  nor  can  it 
be  inferred  on  the  ocean  simply  from  its  existence  on  the  land. 
Since  every  such  concession  is  adverse  to  the  original  government, 
and  is  made  only  under  the  necessity  of  the  case,  it  must  be 
carefully  limited  to  the  actual  fact.  Indeed,  Mr.  Canning,  who 
has  shed  so  much  light  on  these  topics,  openly  took  the  ground 


71 

that  "  Belligerency  is  not  so  much  a  principle  as  a  fact."  And 
the  question  then  arises,  whether  the  Rebel  Slave-mongers  have 
acquired  such  de  facto  sovereignty  on  the  ocean  as  entitles  them 
to  Ocean  Belligerent  rights. 

There  are  at  least  two  "  facts  "  which  are  patent  to  all,  first, 
that  the  Rebel  Slave-mongers  have  not  a  single  port  into  which 
even  legal  cruisers  can  take  their  prizes  for  adjudication ;  and 
secondly,  that  the  ships  which  now  presume  to  exercise  Ocean 
Belligerent  rights  in  their  name — constituting  the  Rebel  Slave- 
monger  navy,  which  a  member  of  the  British  Cabinet  said  was 
"  to  "be  created  " — were  all  "  created"  in  England,  which  is  the 
naval  base  from  which  they  sally  forth  on  their  predatory  cruise 
without  once  entering  a  port  of  their  own  pretended  Government. 

These  two  "  facts "  are  different  in  character.  The  first 
attaches  absolutely  to  the  pretended  Power,  rendering  it  incom 
petent  to  exercise  Belligerent  jurisdiction  on  the  ocean.  The 
second  attaches  to  the  individual  ships,  rendering  them  piratical. 
But  these  simple  and  unquestionable  "  facts  "  are  the  key  to  unlock 
the  present  question 

From  the  reason  of  the  case,  there  can  be  no  Ocean  Belligerent 
without  a  port  into  which  it  can  take  its  prizes.  Any  other  rule 
would  be  absurd.  It  will  not  be  enough  to  sail  the  sea,  like 
the  Flying  Dutchman ;  the  Ocean  Belligerent  must  be  able  to 
touch  the  land  and  that  land  its  own.  This  proceeds  on  the  idea 
of  civilized  warfare,  that  something  more  than  naked  force  is 
essential  to  the  completeness  of  a  capture.  According  to  the 
earlier  rule,  transmutation  of  property  was  accomplished  by  the 
u  pernoctation "  of  the  captured  ship  within  the  port  of  the 
Belligerent,  or  as  it  was  called,  deductio  infra  prccsidia.  As  early 
as  1414,  under  Henry  Y.,  of  England,  there  was  an  Act  of  Par 
liament,  requiring  privateers  to  bring1  their  prizes  into  a  port  of 
the  kingdom,  and  to  make  a  declaration  thereof  to  a  proper  officer, 
before  undertaking  to  dispose  of  them.  {Runningtorfs  Statutes, 
Vol.  i.,  p.  491.)  But  the  modern  rule  interposes  an  additional 
check  upon  lawless  violence  by  requiring  the  condemnation  of  a 
competent  court.  This  rule,  which  is  among  the  most  authori 
tative  of  the  British  Admiralty,  will  be  found  in  the  famous 
letter  of  Sir  "William  Scott  and  Sir  John  Nichol,  addressed  to 
John  Jay,  as  follows  ;  "  Before  the  ship  or  goods  can  be  disposed 
of  by  the  captors,  there  must  be  a  regular  judicial  proceeding, 
wherein  both  parties  may  be  heard  and  condemnation  therefrom 
as  Prize  in  a  Court  of  Admiralty,  judging  by  the  Law  of  Nations 
and  Treaties."  This  is  explicit.  But  this  rije  is  French  as  well 
as  English.  Indeed  it  is  a  part  of  International  Law.  A  seizure 
is  regarded  merely  as  &  preliminary  act,  which  does  not  divest  the 
property,  though  it  paralyzes  the  right  of  the  proprietor.  A 
subsequent  act  of  condemnation,  by  a  competent  tribunal,  is  nec 
essary  to  determine  if  the  seizure  is  valid.  The  question  is 


72 

compendiously  called  prize  or  no  prize.  Where  the  property  of 
neutrals  is  involved  this  requirement  becomes  of  absolute  import- 
tance.  In  conceding  Belligerency,  all  the  customary  belligerant 
rights  with  regard  to  neutrals  are  conceded  also,  so  .that  the 
concession  puts  in  jeopardy  neutral  commerce.  But  without 
dwelling  on  this  point,  I  content  myself  with  the  authority  of  two 
recent  French  writers.  M.  Hautefeuille,  in  his  elaborate  work, 
says  "  the  cruiser  is  not  recognized  as  the  proprietor  of  the  objects 
seized,  but  he  is  held  to  bring  them  before  the  tribunal  and  obtain 
a  sentence  declaring'  them  to  be  prize"  (Hautefeuille,  Des 
Droits  et  des  Devoirs  des  Nations  neutres,  Vol.  iii.,  p.  299,  323, 
352.)  And  a  later  writer,  M.  Eugene  Cauchy,  whose  work  has 
appeared  since  our  war  began,  says,  "  A  usage,  which  evidently 
has  its  source  in  natural  equity,  requires  that,  before  proceeding 
to  divide  the  booty,  there  should  be  an  inquiry  as  to  the  regularity 
of  the  prize;  and  to  this  end,  every  prize  taken  from  an  enemy 
should  be  carried  before  the  judge  established  by  the  sovereign 
of  the  captor"  (Cauchy,  Droit  Maritime  International,  Vol.  i., 
p.  65,  66.  But  if  the  Power,  calling  itself  Belligerent,  cannot 
comply  with  this  condition ;  if  it  has  no  port  into  which  it  can 
bring  the  captured  ship,  and  no  court,  according  to  the  require 
ment  of  the  British  Admiralty,  with  "  a  regular  judicial  proceeding 
wherein  both  parties  may  be  heard,"  it  is  clearly  not  in  a  situation 
to  dispose  of  a  ship  or  goods  as  prize.  Whatever  may  be  its  force 
iii  other  respects,  it  lacks  a  vital  element  of  Ocean  Belligerency. 
In  that  setfu-sovereignty,  which  constitutes  Belligerency  on  land, 
there  must  be  a  provision  for  the  administration  of  justice,  without 
which  there  is  nothing  but  a  mob.  In  that  same  semi-sovereignty 
on  the  ocean  there  must  be  a  similar  provision.  It  will  not  be 
enough  that  there  should  be  ships  duly  commissioned  to  take 
prizes,  there  must  also  be  courts  to  try  them ;  and  the  latter  are 
not  less  important  than  the  former. 

Lord  Russell  himself,  who  was  so  swift  to  make  this  concession, 
has  been  led  to  confess  the  necessity  of  Prize  Courts  on  the  part 
of  Ocean  Belligerents,  and  thus  to  expose  the  irrational  character 
of  his  own  work.  In  a  letter  to  the  Liverpool  Chamber  of  Com 
merce,  dated  1st  January,  1862,  occasioned  by  the  destruction  of 
British  cargoes,  the  Minister  says :  "  The  owners  of  any  British 
property,  not  being  contraband  of  war,  on  board  a  Federal  vessel 
captured  and  destroyed  by  a  Confederate  vessel  of  war,  may  claim 
in  a  Confederate  Prize  Court  compensation  for  destruction  of  such 
property"  (Wheaton's  Elements,  Lawrence's  edit.,  p.  1024.) 
But  if  there  be  no*Prize  Court,  then  justice  must  fail;  and  with 
this  failure  tumbles  in  fact  the  whole  wretched  pretension  of 
Ocean  Belligerency — except  in  the  galvanism  of  a  Queen's 
Proclamation,  or  a  Cabinet  concession. 

If  a  cruiser  may  at  any  time  burn  prizes,  it  is  only  because  of 
some  exceptional  exigency  in  a  particular  case,  and  not  according 


73 

to  any  general  rule.  The  general  rule  declares  that  there  can  be 
no  right  to  take  a  prize,  if  there  be  no  port  into  which  it  may  be 
carried.  The  right  of  capture  and  the  right  of  trial  are  the  com 
plements  of  each  other — through  which  a  harsh  prerogative  is 
supposed  to  be  rounded  into  the  proper  form  of  civilized  warfare. 
Therefore,  every  ship  and  cargo,  burned  by  the  captors,  for  the 
reason  that  they  had  no  port,  testifies  that  they  are  without  that 
vital  sovereignty  on  the  ocean,  which  is  needed  in  the  exercise 
of  Belligerent  jurisdiction,  and  that  they  are  not  Ocean  Belliger 
ents  in  fact.  Nay  more  ;  all  these  bonfires  of  the  sea  cry  out 
against  that  Power,  which  by  a  precipitate  concession  of  a  false 
Belligerency  furnished  the  torch.  As  well  invest  the  rebellious 
rajahs  of  India,  who  have  never  tasted  salt  water,  with  this  Ocean 
prerogative,  so  that  they  too  may  rob  and  burn ;  as  well  constitute 
land-locked  Poland,  now  in  arms  for  Independence,  an  Ocean 
Belligerent ;  or  enroll  mountain  Switzerland  in  the  same  class ;  or 
join  with  Shakspeare  in  making  inland  Bohemia  a  country  with 
hospitable  ports  on  the  ocean. 

To  aggravate  this  concession  of  a  false  Belligerency,  the  ships  are 
all  built,  rigged,  armed  and  manned  in  Great  Britain.  It  is  out 
of  British  oak  and  British  iron  that  they  are  constructed  ;  rigged 
with  British  ropes  ;  made  formidable  with  British  arms  ;  supplied 
with  British  gunners  and  navigated  by  British  crews,  so  as  to  con 
stitute  in  all  respects  a  British  naval  expedition.  British  ports  sup 
ply  the  place  of  Rebel  Slave-monger  ports.  British  ports  are  open 
to  them  when  their  own  are  closed.  British  ports  constitute  their 
naval  base  of  operations  and  supplies,  furnishing  every  thing  need 
ful — except  an  officer — the  ship's  papers — and  a  court  for  the  trial 
of  the  prizes — each  of  which  is  essential  to  the  legality  of  the  expe 
dition.  And  yet  these  same  ships,  thus  equipped  in  British  ports 
and  never  touching-  a  port  of  the  pretended  government  in  whose 
ifame  they  rob  and  burn, — being  simply  a  rib  taken  out  of  the  sido 
of  England  and  contributed  to  a  Slave-monger  Rebellion, — receive 
the  further  passport  of  Belligerency  from  the  British  Government 
when  in  fact  the  Belligerency  does  not  exist.  The  whole  proceed 
ing,  from  the  laying  of  the  keel  in  a  British  dockyard  to  the 
bursting  flames  on  the  ocean,  is  a  mockery  of  International  Law 
and  an  insult  to  a  friendly  Power. 

The  case  is  sometimes  said  to  be  new  ;  but  it  is  new  only  inas 
much  as  no  such  "  parricide "  is  provided  against  in  express 
terms.  It  was  not  anticipated.  But  the  principles  which  govern 
it  are  as  old  as  justice  and  humanity,  in  the  interests  of  which 
Belligerent  Rights  are  said  to  be  conceded.  Here  it  is  all  reversed, 
and  it  is  now  apparent  that,  whatever  may  have  been  the  motives 
of  the  British  Government,  Belligerent  Rights  have  been  conceded 
in  the  interests  of  wjustice  and  Inhumanity.  Burning  ships  and 
scattered  wrecks  are  the  witnesses.  If  such  a  case  is  not  con 
demned  by  International  Law,  then  has  this  law  lost  its  virtue. 


74 

Call  such  cruisers  by  whatever  polite  term  most  pleases  the  ear, 
and  you  do  not  change  their  character  with  their  name.  Without 
a  home  and  without  a  legal  character,  they  are  mere  gypsies  of 
the  sea,  who  by  their  criminal  acts  have  become  disturbers  of  the 
common  highway,  outlaws  and  enemies  of  the  human  race. 

But  there  is  a  precedent,  which  shows  how  impossible  it  is  for 
a  pretended  Power,  without  a  single  port,  to  possess  Belligerent 
Rights  on  the  ocean,  and  how  impossible  it  is  for  the  ship  of  such 
pretended  Power  to  be  any  thing  but  a  felon  ship.  James  II.  of 
England,  after  he  had  ceased  to  be  de  facto  king  and  while  he  was 
an  exile  without  a  single  port,  undertook  to  issue  Letters  of 
Marque.  It  was  argued  unanswerably  before  the  Privy  Council 
of  William  III.,  that,  whatever  might  be  the  claims  de  jure  of  a 
deposed  prince,  he  could  not  receive  from  any  other  sovereign 
"  international  privileges  ;  "  "  that,  if  he  could  grant  a  commission 
to  take  the  ships  of  a  single  nation,  it  would  in  effect  be  a  general 
license  to  plunder,  because  those  ivho  were  so  commissioned  would 
be  their  own  judges  of  whatever  they  took;  and  that  the  reason  of 
the  thing  which  pronounced  that  robbers  and  pirates,  when  they 
formed  themselves  into  a  civil  society,  became  just  enemies,  pro 
nounced  also  that  a  king  without  territory,  without  power  of 
protecting  the  innocent  or  punishing  the  guilty,  or  in  any  way  of 
administering  justice,  dwindled  into  a  pirate  if  lie  issued  commis 
sions  to  seize  the  goods  and  ships  of  nations,  and  thai  they  who 
took  commissions  from  him  must  be  held  by  legal  inference  to  have 
associated  ' sceleris  causa*  and  could  not  be  considered  as  members 
of  civil  society"  (Phillimore,  International  Law,  Yol.  i.  401.) 
These  words  are  strictly  applicable  to  the  present  case.  Whatever 
may  be  the  force  of  the  Rebel  Slave-mongers  on  land,  they  are  no 
better  on  the  ocean  than  the  "  deposed  prince  " — "  without 
power  of  protecting  the  innocent  or  punishing  the  guilty,  or  in  any 
way  of  administering  justice ; "  and,  like  the  prince,  they  too  have 
"  dwindled  into  a  pirate," — except  so  far  as  they  maybe  sustained 
by  British  Recognition. 

And  there  is  yet  another  precedent,  which  shows  that  the 
appropiation  of  a  captured  ship  or  cargo  without  judicial  proceed 
ings,  is  piracy.  The  case  is  memorable.  It  is  none  other  than 
that  of  the  famous  Captain  Kidd,  who,  on  his  indictment  for  piracy, 
as  long  ago  as  1698,  produced  a  commission  in  justification.  But 
it  was  at  once  declared  that  it  was  not  enough  to  show  a  commis 
sion  ;  he  must  also  show  a  condonation  of  the  captured  ship.  The 
Lord  Chief  Baron  of  that  day  said  that  "  if  he  had  acted  pursuant  to 
his  commission  he  ought  to  have  condemned  ship  and  goods ;  that 
by  not  condemning  them  he  showed  his  aim,  rnind  and  intention, 
and  that  he  did  not  act  in  that  case  by  virtue  of  his  commission, 
but  qijite  contrary  to  it ;  that  he  took  the  ship  and  shared  the 
money  and  goods,  and  was  taken  in  that  very  ship,  so  that  there 
is  no  color  or  pretence  that  he  intended  to  bring-  this  ship  to  Eng- 


75 

land  to  be  condemned  or  to  have  condemned  it  in  any  of  the  English 
plantations ;  and  that  whilst  men  pursue  their  commissions  they 
must  be  justified  ;  but  when  they  do  things  not  authorized  or  ever 
intended  by  them,  it  was  as  if  they  had  no  commissions.  (liar- 
grave's  State  Trials,  Vol.  v.  p.  314.)  Capt.  Kidd  was  condemned 
to  death  and  executed  as  a  pirate.  If  he  was  a  pirate,  worthy  of 
death,  then,  by  the  same  rule,  those  rovers  who  burn  ships,  rob 
cargoes  and  adorn  their  cabins  with  rows  of  stolen  chronometers, 
— without  any  pretence  of  a  Prize  Court — must  be  pirates,  worthy 
of  death  likewise. 

But  without  now  considering  more  critically  what  should  be 
the  fate  of  these  ocean-incendiaries,  or  what  the  responsibilities  of 
England,  out  of  whom  they  came,  I  content  myself  with  the 
conclusion  that  they  are  not  entitled  to  Ocean  Belligerency. 

But  even  if  Rebel  Slave-mongers  coagulated  in  embryo 
government,  have  arrived  at  that  jemt-sotereigniy  de  facto  on 
the  ocean  which  justifies  the  concession  of  Belligerent  Rights,  yet 
the  Christian  Powers  should  indignantly  decline  to  make  the 
concession,  because  they  cannot  do  so  without  complicity  with  a 
shameful  crime.  Here  I  avoid  details.  It  is  sufficient  to  say, 
that  every  argument  of  fact  and  reason— every  whisper  of  con 
science  and  humanity — every  indignant  outburst  of  an  honest 
man  against  the  Recognition  of  Slave-monger  Independence  is 
equally  strong  against  any  concession  of  Ocean  Belligerency. 
Indeed  such  concession  is  the  half-way  house  to  Recognition,  and 
it  can  be  made  only  where  a  nation  is  ready,  if  the  fact  of  Inde 
pendence  be  sufficiently  established,  to  acknowledge  it — on  the 
principle  of  Yattel  that "  whosoever  has  a  right  to  the  end  has  aright 
to  the  means."  (Book  IY.  cap.  v.  §  60.)  But  it  is  equally  clear, 
that  where  a  nation,  on  grounds  of  conscience,  must  refuse  the 
Recognition  of  Independence,  it  cannot  concede  Belligerency,  for 
ivhere  the  end  is  forbidden  the  means  must  be  forbidden  also. 
But  the  illogical  absurdity  of  any  such  concession  by  Great 
Britain,  so  persistent  always  against  Slavery  and  now  for  more 
than  a  generation  the  declared  "  protectress  of  the  African  race," 
becomes  doubly  apparent  when  it  is  considered,  that  every  rebel 
ship  built  in  England  and  invested  with  Ocean  Belligerency, 
carries  with  it  the  law  of  Slavery,  so  that  the  ship  becomes  an 
extension  of  Slave  Territory  by  British  concession. 

And  yet  it  is  said  that  such  a  monster  is  entitled  to  the  conces 
sion  of  ocean  rights,  and  the  British  Queen  is  made  to  proclaim 
them.  Sad  day  for  England  when  another  wicked  compromise 
was  struck  with  Slavery,  kindred  in  nature  to  that  old  Treaty, 
which  mantles  the  cheeks  of  honest  Englishmen  as  they  read  it, 
by  which  the  slave-trade  was  protected  and  its  profits  secured  to 
British  subjects  !  I  know  not  the  profits  which  have  been  secured 
by  the  destruction  of  American  commerce ;  but  I  do  know  that 
the  Treaty  of  Utrecht,  crimson  with  the  blood  of  slaves,  is  not 


76 

so  crimson  as  that  reckless  Proclamation,  which  gave  to  Slavery  a 
frantic  life,  and  helped  for  a  time,  nay  still  helps  the  demon,  in 
the  rage  with  which  it  battles  against  Human  Rights.  Such  a 
ship  with  the  Law  of  Slavery  on  its  deck  and  with  the  flag  of 
Slavery  at  its  mast-head,  sailing  for  Slavery,  burning  for  Slavery, 
fighting  for  Slavery  and  knowing  no  other  sovereignty  than  the 
pretended  government  of  Rebel  Slave-mongers,  can  be  nothing 
less,  in  spirit  arid  character,  than  a  Slave-Pirate  and  the  enemy  of 
the  human  race.  Like  produces  like,  and  the  parent  Power, 
which  is  Slavery,  must  stamp  itself  upon  the  ship,  making  it  a 
floating  offence  to  Heaven,  with  no  limit  to  its  audacity — wild, 
outrageous,  impious,  a  monster  of  the  deep  to  be  hunted  down  by 
all  who  have  not  forgotten  their  duty  alike  to  God  and  man. 

Meanwhile  there  is  one  simple  act  which  the  justice  of  England 
cannot  continue  to  refuse.  That  fatal  concession  of  Ocean 
Belligerency,  made  in  a  moment  of  eclipse,  when  reason  and 
humanity  were  obscured,  must  be  annulled.  The  blunder-crime 
must  be  renounced,  so  that  the  Slave-pirates  may  no  longer  sail  the 
sea,  burning,  destroying,  robbing,  with  British  license.  Then  will 
they  promptly  disappear  forever,  and  with  them  will  disappear 
the  occasion  of  strife  between  two  Great  Powers,  who  ought  to 
be,  if  not  as  mother  and  child,  at  least  as  brothers  among  the 
Nations.  And  may  God  in  his  mercy  help  this  consummation  ! 

And  here  I  leave  this  part  of  the  subject,  founding  my  objec 
tions  on  two  grounds : 

(1.)  The  embryo  government  of  Rebel  Slave-mongers  has  not 
that  degree  of  sovereignty  on  the  ocean  which  is  essential  to 
Belligerency  there. 

(2.)  Even  if  it  possessed  the  requisite  sovereignty,  no  Christian 
Power  can  make  any  such  concession  to  it  without  a  shameful 
complicity  with  Slavery. 

Both  of  these  are  objections  of  fact.  Either  is  sufficient.  But 
even  if  the  Belligerency  seems  to  be  established  as  a  fact,  still  its 
concession  in  this  age  of  Christian  light  would  seem  to  be  impos 
sible,  unless  under  some  temporary  aberration,  which,  for  the 
honor  of  England  and  the  welfare  of  Humanity,  it  is  to  be  hoped 
will  speedily  pass  away. 

Our  Duties. 

Again,  fellow-citizens,  I  crave  forgiveness  for  this  long  trespass 
upon  your  patience.  If  the  field  that  we  have  traversed  has  been 
ample,  it  has  been  brightened  always  by  the  light  of  International 
Justice,  exposing  clearly  from  beginning  to  end  the  sacred  land 
marks  of  duty.  I  have  been  frank,  disguising  nothing  and  keeping 
nothing  back  ;  so  that  you  have  been  able  to  see  the  perils  to  which 
the  Republic  is  exposed  from  the  natural  tendency  of  war  to  breed 
war,  as  exhibited  in  the  examples  of  history,  and  also  from  the 


77 

fatal  proclivity  of  Foreign  Powers  to  intermeddle,  as  exhibited  in 
recent  instances  of  querulous  criticism  or  intrusive  proposition,  all 
adverse  to  the  good  cause,  while  pirate  ships  have  been  permitted 
to  depredate  on  our  commerce ;  then  how  the  best  historic  instances 
testify  in  favor  of  Freedom  and  how  all  Intervention  of  every  kind, 
whether  by  proffer  of  mediation  or  otherwise,  becomes  intolerable 
when  its  influence  tends  to  the  establishment  of  that  soulless 
anomaly  a  professed  Republic  built  on  the  hopeless  and  everlasting 
bondage  of  a  race — and  especially  how  Great  Britain  is  sacredly 
engaged  by  all  the  logic  of  her  history  and  all  her  traditions  in 
unbroken  lineage  against  any  such  unutterable  baseness ;  then 
how  all  the  Christian  Powers,  constituting  the  Family  of  Nations, 
are  firmly  bound  to  set  their  faces  against  any  Recognition  of  the 
embryo  government  of  Rebel  Slave-mongers,  on  two  grounds ; 
first,  because  its  Independence  is  not  in  fact  established;  and 
secondly,  because,  even  if  in  fact  established,  its  Recognition  is 
impossible  without  criminal  complicity  with  Slavery ;  and  lastly, 
how  these  same  Christian  Powers  are  firmly  bound  by  the  same 
two-fold  reasons  against  any  concession  of  Ocean  rights-  to  this 
hideous  pretender» 

It  only  remains  that  the  Republic  should  lift  itself  to  the  height 
of  its  great  duties.  War  is  hard  to  bear — with  its  waste,  its  pains, 
its  wounds,  its  funerals.  But  in  this  war  we  have  not  been 
choosers.  We  have  been  challenged  to  the  defence  of  our 
country,  and  in  this  sacred  cause,  to  crush  Slavery.  There  is  no 
alternative.  Slavery  began  the  combat,  staking  its  life  and 
determined  to  rule  or  die.  That  we  may  continue  freemen  there 
must  be  no  slaves ;  so  that  our  own  security  is  linked  with  the 
redemption  of  a  race.  Blessed  lot,  amidst  the  harshness  of  war, 
to  wield  the  arms  and  deal  the  blows  under  which  the  monster 
will  surely  fall!  The  battle  is  mighty,  for  into  Slavery  has 
entered  the  Spirit  of  Evil.  It  is  persistent,  for  such  a  gathered 
wickedness,  concentrated,  aroused  and  maddened,  must  have  a 
tenacity  of  life,  which  will  not  yield  at  once.  But  might  will  not 
save  it  now ;  nor  time  either. 

That  the  whole  war  is  contained  in  Slavery  may  be  seen,  not 
only  in  the  acts  of  the  National  Government,  but  also  in  the 
confessions  of  the  Rebel  Slave-mongers.  Already  the  President, 
by  Proclamation,  has  announced  that  the  slaves  throughout  the 
whole  rebel  region  "  are  and  henceforward  shall  be  free,"  and,  in 
order  to  give  the  fullest  assurance  of  the  irreversible  character  of 
this  sublime  edict,  he  has  further  announced  "  that  the  Executive 
Government  of  the  United  States,  including  the  military  and 
naval  authorities  thereof,  will  recognize  and  maintain  the  freedom 
of  such  persons."  Already  an  enlightened  Commission  has  been 
constituted,  to  consider  how  these  thronging  freedmen  can  be 
best  employed  for  their  own  good  and  the  national  defence.  And 


78 

already  the  sons  of  Africa,  as  mustered  soldiers  of  the  Union, 
have  put  forth  a  discipline  and  a  bravery,  not  unworthy  of  their 
fathers  of  old,  when  the  prophet  Jeremiah  said,  "  Let  the  mighty 
men  come  forth,  the  Ethiopians  that  handle  the  shield  ;  "  (cap. 
xlvi.,  v.  9,)  and  still  further,  by  their  stature,  by  their  appearance 
in  the  ranks  and  even  by  the  unexpected  testimony  of  sanitary 
statistics — according  to  which  for  every  black  soldier  disabfed  by 
sickness  there  are  more  than  ten  white,  thus  making  the  army 
health  of  the  black  ten  times  as  sure  as  that  of  the  white — by  all 
these  things,  they  have  shown  that  the  Father  of  History,  who  is 
our  earliest  classical  authority,  was  not  entirely  mistaken  when 
he  spoke  of  Ethiopia  as  "  the  most  distant  region  of  the  earth, 
whose  inhabitants  are  the  tallest,  most  beautiful  and  most  long- 
lived  of  the  human  race."  (Herodotus  III.,  114.)  But  even  if 
these  acts  of  the  National  Government  were  less  significant,  all 
doubt  is  removed  by  the  Rebel  Slave-mongers  themselves,  who  in 
Satanic  audacity,  openly  avow  that  Slavery  is  the  end  and  aim  of 
the  Government  which  they  seek  to  establish,  so  that  the  whole 
bloody  war  which  they  wage  is  all  in  the  name  of  Slavery.  There 
fore,  in  battling  against  the  Rebellion  we  battle  against  Slavery. 
Freedom  is  the  growing  inspiration  of  our  armies  and  the  just 
inscription  of  our  banners.  By  this  sign  conquer.  Such  a  war 
is  not  in  any  just  sense  a  war  of  subjugation  ;  but  a  war  of 
Liberation — in  order  to  save  the  Republic  from  a  petty  oligarchy 
of  task-masters,  and  to  rescue  four  millions  of  human  beings  from 
a. cruel  oppression.  Not  to  subjugate  but  to  liberate  is  the  object 
of  our  Holy  War.  And  yet  British  statesmen,  forgetting  for  the 
moment  all  moral  distinctions — forgetting  God  who  will  not  be 
forgotten — gravely  announce  that  our  cause  must  fail!  Alas! 
individual  wickedness  is  too  often  successful ;  but  a  pretended 
Nation,  suckled  in  wickedness  and  boasting  its  wickedness — a 
new  Sodom,  with  all  the  guilt  of  the  old,  waiting  to  be  blasted 
and  yet,  in  its  effrontery,  openly  seeking  the  fellowship  of 
Christian  Powers — is  doomed  to  defeat.  Toleration  of  such  a 
pretension  is  practical  Atheism.  Chronology  and  geography  are 
both  offended  by  it.  Piety  stands  aghast.  In  this  age  of  light 
and  in  countries  boasting  civilization,  there  can  be  no  place  for 
its  barbarous  plenipotentiaries.  As  well  expect  crocodiles  crawl 
ing  on  the  pavements  of  London  and  Paris,  or  the  carnivorous 
idols  of  Africa  installed  for  worship  in  Westminster  Abbey  and 
Notre  Dame. 

Even  if  the  Republic  were  less  strong,  yet  I  am  glad  to  believe 
that  the  Rebellion  must  fail,  from  the  essential  impossibility  of  any 
such  wicked  success.  The  responsibilities  of  the  Christian  Powers 
would  be  increased  by  our  weakness.  Behind  our  blockade  there 
would  be  a  moral  blockade ;  behind  our  armies  there  would  be  the 
aroused  judgment  of  the  civilized  world.  But  not  on  this  account 
can  we  hesitate.  This  is  no  time  to  stop.  Forward;  Forward. 


79 

Thus  do  I,  who  formerly  pleaded  so  often  for  peace,  now  sound  to 
arms.  But  it  is  because,  in  this  terrible  moment,  there  is  no 
other  way  to  that  sincere  and  solid  peace  without  which  there  will 
be  endless  war.  Even  on  economic  grounds,  it  were  better  that 
this  war  should  proceed,  rather  than  recognize  any  partition, 
which,  beginning  with  humiliation,  must  involve  the  perpetuation 
of  armaments  and  break  out  again  in  blood.  But  there  is  some 
thing  worse  than  waste  of  money  ;  it  is  waste  of  character.  Give 
me  any  peace  but  a  Liberticide  peace.  In  other  days  the  immense 
eloquence  of  Burke  was  stirred  against  a  Regicide  peace.  But  a 
peace  founded  on  the  killing  of  a  king  is  not  so  bad  as  a  peace 
founded  on  the  killing  of  Liberty ;  nor  can  the  saddest  scenes  of 
such  a  peace  be  so  sad  as  the  daily  life  which  is  legalized  by 
Slavery.  A  Queen  on  the  scaffold  is  not  so  pitiful  a  sight  as  a 
woman  on  the  auction-block.  Therefore,  I  say  again,  Forward  ! 
Forward  ! 

But  while  thus  steady  in  our  purpose  at  home,  we  must  not 
neglect  that  proper  moderation  abroad,  which  becomes  the  con 
sciousness  of  our  strength  and  the  nobleness  of  our  cause.  The 
mistaken  sympathy  which  Foreign  Powers  now  bestow  upon 
Slavery, — or  it  may  be  the  mistaken  insensibility — under  the 
plausible  name  of  "  neutrality,"  which  they  profess — will  be  worse 
for  them  than  for  us.  For  them  it  will  be  a  record  of  shame  which 
their  children  would  gladly  blot  out  with  tears.  For  us  it  will  be 
only  another  obstacle  vanquished  in  the  battle  for  Civilization, 
where  unhappily  false  friends  are  mingled  with  open  enemies. 
Even  if  the  cause  shall  seem  for  a  while  imperilled  from  Foreign 
Powers,  yet  our  duties  are  none  the  less  urgent.  If  the  pressure 
be  great,  the  resistance  must  be  greater  ;  nor  can  there  be  any 
retreat.  Come  weal  or  woe  this  is  the  place  for  us  to  stand. 

I  know  not  if  a  Republic  like  ours  can  count  even  now  upon  the 
certain  friendship  of  any  European  Power,  unless  it  be  the  Republic 
of  William  Tell.  The  very  name  is  unwelcome  to  the  full-blown 
representatives  of  monarchical  Europe,  who  forget  how  proudly, 
even  in  modern  history,  Yenice  bore  the  title  of  Serenissima 
Respublica.  It  will  be  for  us  to  change  all  this,  and  we  shall  do 
it.  Our  successful  example  will  be  enough.  Thus  far  we  have 
been  known,  chiefly  through  that  vital  force  which  Slavery  could 
only  degrade  but  not  subdue.  Now  at  last,  by  the  death  of 
Slavery,  will  the  Republic  begin  to  live.  For  what  is  life  without 
Liberty  ?  Stretching  from  ocean  to  ocean — teeming  with  popula 
tion — bountiful  in  resources  of  all  kinds — and  thrice-happy  in 
universal  enfranchisement — it  will  be  more  than  conqueror. 
Nothing  too  vast  for  its  power ;  nothing  too  minute  for  its  care. 
Triumphant  over  the  foulest  wrong  ever  inflicted — after  the  blood 
iest  war  ever  waged — it  will  know  the  majesty  of  Right  and  the 
beauty  of  Peace — prepared  always  to  uphold  the  one  and  to  culti 
vate  the  other.  Strong  in  its  own  mighty  stature — filled  with  all 


80 

the  fulness  of  a  new  life  and  covered  with  a  panoply  of  renown, 
it  will  confess  that  no  dominion  is  of  value  which  does  not 
contribute  to  human  happiness.  Born  in  this  latter  day  and  the 
child  of  its  own  struggles,  without  ancestral  claims,  but  heir  of 
all  the  ages — it  will  stand  forth  to  assert  the  dignity  of  man,  and 
wherever  any  member  of  the  Human  Family  is  to  be  succored, 
there  its  voice  will  reach — as  the  voice  of  Cromwell  reached 
across  France  even  to  the  persecuted  mountaineers  of  the  Alps. 
Such  will  be  this  Republic ; — upstart  among  the  nations.  Aye! 
as  the  steam-engine,  the  telegraph  and  chloroform  are  upstart. 
Comforter  and  Helper  like  these,  it  can  know  no  bounds  to  its 
empire  over  a  willing  world.  But  the  first  stage  is  the  death  of 
Slavery. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


RENEWED  BOOKS  ARE  SUBJECT  TO  IMMEDIATE 
RECALL 


LIBRARY,  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  DAVIS 

Book  Slip-70m-9,'65(F7151s4)458 


PAMPHLET  BINDER 

Syracuse,  N.  Y. 
StocKton,  Calif. 


N2  408898 


S limner,    C. 

Our  foreign  relations 


E469 

S9 

09 


LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
DAVIS 


